Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BREAD RATIONING (PETITION)

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I beg to ask leave to present to this Honourable House a Petition, signed by 514 housewives of the town of Llangollen in the county of Denbigh. The petitioners state that they view with grave concern the further difficulties and restriction about to be imposed upon them by bread rationing. They pray this House that no food supplies be exported from this country at present; that our milk supply be more equitably distributed; that the Purchase Tax should be removed from all remaining household utensils and that housewives should be classed as manual workers.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order. Having regard to the fact that a great many of the signatories of this Petition were under a misapprehension when they appended their signatures, is it in Order for this Petition to be presented?

Mr. Speaker: They may have been under a misapprehension, but it is one we cannot argue about.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. Is it not the case that the Tories, hungry for office, are exaggerating the present situation?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member himself might one day want to present a Petition.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Hangar, Renfrew Airport

Mr. Rankin: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will take steps to release the Lockheed hangar at Renfrew airport for the use of civil aircraft.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Approximately one-half only of the Lockheed hangar is in Admiralty occupation. Search is being made for alternative accommodation for naval aircraft, and, meanwhile, sufficient space is being cleared to meet the immediate requirements of civil aircraft.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hangar which has been released is the smaller hangar, which will, at the most, hold only three Dakotas, and, in view of the expanding needs of the airport, will he keep in mind the necessity of releasing the larger hangar at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Alexander: We are clearing as much more space as possible. We will look into it, and be as helpful as we can.

Discharge Purchase

Mr. Gammans: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when long service Regulars in the Royal Marines will again be able to buy their discharge.

Mr. Alexander: Manning difficulties in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines necessitate that such discharges for the present can only be approved in very exceptional cases. I am unable to give any date by which a further concession will be practicable, but the matter will be reviewed next spring.

Mr. Gammans: Does the First Lord realise that, if he wants to encourage recruitment for the Regular Royal Navy, the restoration of this right would do an awful lot to help?

Mr. Alexander: I think I sympathise with the hon. Member, but he will realise my difficulties, too. I am under contract to let out the "hostilities only" people, and, after all, these other people are under Regular engagement.

German Yacht, Hartlepool

Mr. David Jones: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty for what purpose the ex-German luxury yacht is located in Hartlepool Dock; and why it has not been adapted for use as a short distance passenger steamer to supplement the existing fleet of vessels which is not sufficient to meet the demand.

Mr. Alexander: This vessel is being offered for sale and has been brought to Hartlepool Dock pending her final disposal.

Mr. Jones: Is the First Lord aware that his Department has been made a very substantial offer for the hire of this vessel, arid why is it kept idle when it can be earning money?

Mr. Alexander: I had a look into that, and I feel convinced, in my own mind, that this vesesl would not, by the time we had authorised the alterations to make her suitable for the service for which she would be hired, be economical, and that it is much better to sell her as she lies.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many short-distance passenger services—B.A.O.R. leave and so on—are not assisted by the Admiralty with vessels of this sort or any other sort, and that many ships are badly needed for the cross-Channel services owing to many others being in the locker bearing the same name as that of the hon. Member who asked the Question, and would the First Lord release some of them?

Mr. Alexander: I am trying to do my best for the public interest, and, in this case, the public interest would best be served by selling this vessel for the highest price I can get.

Foreign Service Leave

Mr. Medland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is expected that the regulations respecting leave for men serving on foreign commissions will be reverted to the prewar standard, namely, 11 days' leave for every six months of absence abroad.

Mr. Alexander: The prewar scale of foreign service leave will be reintroduced as soon as the manning situation permits, but it is not yet possible to say when this will be.

Families of Personnel (Passage Costs)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the passage costs demanded for the conveyance of the wives and children of naval ratings in H.M.S. "Speaker" to Bermuda.

Commander Maitland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what basis the cost to the wives and children of ratings is calculated when passage is arranged in His Majesty's ships for the purpose of enabling wives to join their husbands; and if he will give examples of the charges demanded in the case of such passages to Malta, Bermuda and other naval bases.

Mr. Alexander: As announced on 29th May, it is intended to introduce a scheme for free passages in the near future. In the meantime, the charges for passengers in H.M. ships, not entitled to free conveyance at public expense, are based on those authorised for troop transports. The ratings' families given cabin accommodation in "Speaker" to Bermuda were charged the Grade B transport rate of £35; corresponding charges to Malta, Colombo and Singapore would be £18, £55 and £81 respectively, reductions being made for children.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the First Lord aware that the cost demanded for the wife and one child of a petty officer travelling in one of His Majesty's ships was £69, and that the cost demanded for the wife of a leading telegraphist was £49? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify such an exorbitant charge in respect to wives and children of naval ratings in view of the statement made by the Financial Secretary on the subject? In any case, how can he justify charging anything more than the messing cost to the wives and children of naval ratings when conveyed in one of His Majesty's ships?

Mr. Alexander: I would like to be in a position to convey everybody everywhere free of charge, but, unfortunately, our finances do not ran to that. The charge made was below what would have been the normal commercial charge. As my hon. Friend announced on 29th May, a new system is being introduced and I am arranging that anybody who has travelled since 1st July and has paid this charge will have the money refunded if


he would otherwise be entitled to free passage under the new scheme.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Can the First Lord tell us when this scheme wilt be introduced, because these figures are enormous?

Mr. Alexander: They look enormous on paper until one examines the details, which I cannot do at Question time. As I have said, this scheme was introduced on about 1st July, and any charge incurred since that date will be refunded where a person would otherwise be entitled to travel free.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is the purpose of this charge to discourage the wives and children from joining their husbands? It really, has that effect.

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.

Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the information he has just given is made known to serving seamen by means of Fleet Orders?

Mr. Alexander: We always take adequate steps in that direction.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: In view of the unsatisfactory reply given by the First Lord, I wish to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Radio Mechanics (Training)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the reason for the long delay in sending ratings on the Radio Mechanics' W/T course, and how Many are affected.

Mr. Alexander: During the war, arrangements were made for ratings of this class to receive their technical training at civilian technical colleges. Owing to the return of normal peacetime students to these colleges, training must now be carried out in Service establishments. A temporary shortage of naval and civilian instructors in these establishments caused some arrears in the last few months, but these have been reduced by nearly 50 per cent in the last few weeks, and with the appointment of some additional civilian instructors, I hope the arrears will be cleared in the course of the next two months. The number of ratings affected is, approximately, 150.

Stores Depot, Almondbank

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the estimated value, respectively, of wireless valves, watches, and new accumulators which have never had acid in them, which have been broken up since VJ-Day on No. 3 site, R.N. stores depot, Almondbank, and why these were not disposed of to the public through normal channels.

Mr. Alexander: No serviceable wireless valves, watches or new accumulators have been broken up at No. 3 site, R.N. Store Depot, Perth, since VJ-Day. Scrapping of these items has been limited to valves which have become unserviceable, and watches defective beyond repair, which have been taken to pieces to obtain serviceable components.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not in accordance with the information given to me locally?

Mr. Alexander: I prefer to rely upon mine, Sir.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister say what arrangements are being made for the sale of surplus Admiralty stores, whether people in North-Eastern Scotland will have an opportunity of inspecting and buying them, and, if so, when and where?

Mr. Alexander: In order to be as economical as possible, all stores of this kind are generally dealt with through the Ministry of Supply. Anything of this kind is turned over to the Ministry of Supply for disposal.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total value of the buildings, machinery, stores and stock, respectively, destroyed in the fire at the end of 1945 on Site 2 in R.N. stores, Almondbank; if the cause of the outbreak has been ascertained; and whether he is aware that the amount of the damage was increased by the fact that no key was available on the site to open the building where the fire started and so deal with it expeditiously.

Mr. Alexander: The estimated loss caused by the fire at the R.N. Stores Depot, Almondbank, is as follows:

£


Buildings destroyed and site clearance
24,000


Heating and electric light and power plant
6,000


Shop plant, personal tools, etc.
13,000


Naval stores
37,000




Despite thorough investigation it has been impossible to ascertain the cause of the outbreak. There is no evidence of electrical circuit failure, of electrical overheating, sabotage or spontaneous combustion. A key of the workshop was available, but, unfortunately, valuable time was lost owing to an error in its disposal when the outbreak was discovered, and the firefighters were obliged to break their way into the building. The reports on this fire are still under consideration with a view to the issue of instructions designed to prevent a recurrence of such an outbreak.

Dental Branch (Release)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what he expects will be the release date for Group 52 of sick berth attendants, dental mechanics.

Mr. Alexander: Sick berth ratings (dental mechanics) in age and service group 52 are due for release during the period 26th August, 1946, to 16th September, 1946.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of overstaffing in certain sections of the dental branch of H.M.S. "Drake," Devonport, and the consequent irritation felt by members of those sections; and whether he is prepared to take steps to correct this.

Mr. Alexander: I am aware that, owing to the difficulty in ensuring an even flow of releases from all branches of the Navy under the age and service scale to correspond with decreasing requirements, there has been a temporary excess of dental ratings at Devonport. Steps have, however, already been taken to remedy the position, which will become normal in the next few weeks.

Regular Officers (Resignation)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the position of Regular officers who have applied to be permitted to resign their commissions by 30th September in order to be free to enter a university.

Mr. Alexander: This matter is under active consideration, but I regret I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

Colonel Wheatley: Is the First Lord aware that the lack of any decision is causing a great deal of irritation among officers who naturally want to make their plans for employment in civil life?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. I have great sympathy with them, but, on the other hand, I have an immense problem in connection with the large number of "hostility only" officers whose educational careers were interrupted and who want to get back to the universities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with Regular officers under contract. We will deal with the position as soon as we can.

Wrecks and Mines

Captain Marsden: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what areas within the territorial limits of the United Kingdom remain to be cleared of wrecks and mines.

Mr. Alexander: As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following areas within British territorial waters still remain to be cleared of mines:

(a) All waters of under three fathoms in the Thames Estuary.
(b) An area off Harwich from South-wold to Foulness Point.
(c) An area off the Butt of Lewis.
(d) The waters between Islay and Londonderry.

The following areas remain to be cleared of wrecks which are dangerous to navigation:

East Coast of U.K.:

(a) Cromarty Firth.
(b) Peterhead to South Foreland.

South Coast of U.K.:

(a) South Foreland to Dungeness.
(b) Beachy Head to Selsey Bill.
(c) Poole Bay.
(d) Falmouth Bay.

West Coast of U.K.:
(a) Parts of Bristol Channel.
(b) Milford Haven.
(c) Liverpool Bay.

Northern Ireland:

Belfast Lough.

Orkneys:
Kirkwall and Scapa area.
The estimated number of wrecks to be dispersed is over 500.

Fleet Strengths

Captain Marsden: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to publish the White Paper showing the strength of the fleets of all countries.

Mr. Alexander: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) on 5th December last, to which I have nothing to add.

Captain Marsden: As it is now a long while since we had any information at all, cannot the First Lord give some indication when this information will be available?

Mr. Alexander: I share the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member, but one of the difficulties is that it is so soon after the war. Until redistributions are achieved, it is really impossible to give accurate information. It is not worth going to all the expense of printing information to lay before hon. Members which is not up to date or accurate.

Sir R. Ross: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give as much information as possible which is accurate so that we may get some idea of the figures?

Captain Marsden: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now make known the strength of the R.N., naming in detail the numbers and types of ships that are in full commission, with reduced crews, in reserve and on the disposal and sale lists.

Mr. Alexander: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given him by the Parliamentary Secretary on 22nd May last, to which I regret that I am unable to add.

Captain Marsden: In view of the fact that the United States Navy Department issued this information about the British Fleet to their own people, cannot we in this country know about our own Fleet?

Mr. Alexander: I am not aware that information of that kind has been issued to the American public.

Captain Marsden: The First Lord says that the information has not been made public, but does he not realise that it is known to the United States Navy?

Mr. Alexander: From time to time, Service information is exchanged between Allies which is valuable to both.

Pensions Reassessment Scheme

Mr. Willis: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst many older naval pensioners, who served during the recent war, at the amount they will receive under the reassessment of pensions scheme; and if he will consider retaining the Greenwich Hospital age increases, as an addition, for all pensioners who would normally have become eligible for these benefits.

Mr. Alexander: The reassessment scheme provides for the reassessment of pensions to the new code rates and conditions, less an abatement to allow for the special benefits already received through the payment of pension in addition to full pay during re-employed service. No age increases are payable on the new code pensions, and it follows that no age increases can be paid on reassessed pensions.
For a man with six years war service, the increase payable under the reassessment scheme would always be greater than the amount of age increases surrendered. Many of the older pensioners will, however, as an alternative to reassessment, qualify for increases of 30 per cent. on their existing pensions, including age addition, under the Pensions Increase Act; and it cannot be expected that the reassessment scheme will in all cases produce an increase of as much as 30 per cent. Every man will have his alternative entitlements explained to him in detail, and will be able to choose that which suits him best.

Mr. Willis: Can I take it from that answer that no man of the age of 60 will actually be worse off? The figures given to me in a reply last month indicated that many men of the age of 60would actually be worse off as a result of having served during the war.

Mr. Alexander: I follow my hon. Friend's point clearly. I think that if a man were so ill-advised as to choose the wrong alternative when it was explained to him, in one or two cases he might, over the whole period, be rather worse off. But if he chose the right one —that is to say, if, under the reassessment of the new pay code, he would be getting less than the 30 per cent. plus age increase than under the other—he would


be very foolish not to stick to his present scale. If he chooses that one he will not be worse off.

Postwar Pay Code (Allowances)

Mr. Willis: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the following allowances will be payable under the postwar pay codes for officers and ratings: charge of machinery allowance to engineer officers and chief engineroom artificers, vide Articles 1573 and 1605 of K.R. and A.I.s, and store allowances to officers and ratings in ships where no accountant officer is carried, vide Articles 1581 and 1595 and Appendix VIII of K.R. and A.I.s.

Mr. Alexander: So far as officers are concerned, the allowances referred to are absorbed in basic pay under the new code. Charge allowance will, however, continue to be paid to chief engine room artificers and other ratings when in charge of machinery of ships in commission with a full or special complement. An allowance, at the rate of 1s. or 6d. a day according to the circumstances, will also be paid to ratings placed in charge of stores in the absence of an officer. The regulations for payment will be issued as soon as possible.

Rosyth Dockyard

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of Rosyth Dockyard.

Mr. Alexander: I regret I am unable to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) 20th March last.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is not the First Lord aware that the delay in making known the Government policy is causing great concern throughout Scotland?

Mr. Alexander: If I could be certain within a few weeks as to what will be the exact strength of the British Fleet in relation to other fleets which are under readjustment, no doubt we could settle our policy right away, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that there are other dockyards besides Rosyth to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the long delay in deciding this matter, will the

First Lord promise that we will get a decision within the next 30 years?

Mr. Alexander: I will readily give my hon. Friend that assurance, because he will not be interested them.

Personnel (Approach to Members)

Mr. Sydney Silverman: asked fie First Lord of the Admiralty whether a sailor serving in the R.N. who writes to his Member of Parliament on a Service question affecting his personal service commits an offence against any regulations.

Mr. Alexander: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 19th November last.

Mr. Silverman: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable doubt, which seems to exist in his own Department, about this matter? Es he further aware that in a letter which was written to me, the following sentence appears:
The rating's attention is being drawn to this, but there will be no question of taking disciplinary action for his breach of the regulations"?
I would like my right hon. Friend to make quite clear whether there is a breach of the regulations or not.

Mr. Alexander: I have not seen the correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers. I will have a look at it. I myself am most anxious to prevent anything in the nature of a grievance arising in connection with communicating to Members of Parliament, although, on the other hand, I am also most anxious that ordinary matters which can be adjusted by the approach of sailors and soldiers to their normal authorities should not be the subject of constant communication with Members of Parliament. I would like to look into the circumstances of the case before making any further statement.

Mr. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that everybody appreciates that it is better that these matters should be dealt with in the way that he suggests, but that, nevertheless, there is an overriding public interest in the necessity for making it clear that if a man writes to his Member of Parlia-


ment on a matter relating to his own Service, he commits no offence against any regulations?

Mr. Alexander: I take that point and, on behalf of my Department, I rest on the statement made by the Lord President of the Council on 19th November.

Mr. Callaghan: Will my right hon. Friend make a clear statement to this effect in the next notice board issue of Admiralty Fleet Orders, because the men still do not know what their rights are?

Mr. Alexander: They must have missed some of my instructions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Tile Company's Claim (Settlement)

Mr. Turton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, on 4th December, 1945, he informed the valuer acting for the United Tile Manufacturers, Limited, that he could not agree to pay more than £140 for the reinstatement of drying racks at the Roecliffe Brick and Tile Works; why, on 20th February, 1946, without communicating with the valuer and without receiving any additional evidence, he agreed to pay the firm £473 in respect of this claim; and whether he is aware that this irregular action has damaged the prestige of the valuer in question.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): When the offer of £140 was made we believed that it represented fair and reasonable compensation. Subsequently, another inspection was made of the property and, at their request, a meeting was held with the company; in the light of the additional evidence produced, we agreed to the higher figure. The company did not bring their valuer to the meeting, but this constitutes no irregularity on our part.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the evidence was submitted on nth October to the Air Ministry, and could he say why he suddenly broke off negotiations with the valuer and conducted negotiations with the firm behind the back of the valuer?

Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware of those facts. My information is that additional

evidence was presented at the meeting on 19th February to which, for reasons best known to themselves, the company did not bring the valuer.

Mr. Jennings: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the difference in these figures is so large that somebody without much knowledge must have been trying to settle the claim?

Mr. de Freitas: I cannot agree with that. Additional evidence was produced at the meeting by the claimant, in the light of which we revised our figure.

Mr. Turton: Was not the settlement made on the basis of the figures submitted by the valuer on 11th October?

Mr. de Freitas: I must make it clear that that is not my information.

Stations, Wigtownshire

Mr. McKie: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will now make a statement regarding future plans for the R.A.F. Station at Wig Bay, Wigtownshire.

Mr. de Freitas: We shall be using this station as a flying boat storage unit for some time yet. Its final disposal has not yet been decided.

Mr. McKie: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement as to future plans for the aerodrome at Boldoon, Wigtownshire.

Mr. de Freitas: Our present plan is to keep the Royal Air Force Station at Wigtown for permanent flying use.

Police (Release)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is expected that the release of men in the R.A.F. police will catch up with the general rate of release.

Mr. York: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many groups behind the average for demobilisation are the R.A.F. police in Aden and India; what is the reason for the delay in demobilising this trade; and when will they reach parity with the average release group of the R.A.F.

Mr. de Freitas: Release promulgations for the Royal Air Force police are the same in all commands. In July they are four groups behind the general level for


ground trades; this comes down to three groups in August and in our forecast for September. I cannot give a further forecast yet. The main reasons for the delay in their release are that the groups up to 40 contain a higher proportion of men in this trade than the average for the R.A.F., and that it is not easy to get enough recruits of the high standard required for the police.

Water and Electricity (Spare Supplies)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will make electricity available to all the village houses in Strubby, Lincolnshire, from the aerodrome, and speed up the general policy of sharing water, electricity and sanitation services with all villages in proximity to aerodromes which have such public services available.

Mr. de Freitas: The supply of water and electricity at most airfields is provided by public utility authorities. We are always ready to consider suggestions for sharing any spare supplies once we know what the authorities would like us to provide. We have only had two applications for electricity to be supplied to houses in Strubby; one has been approved, the other is being considered. As a matter of fact, we may be unable Ito help much more in this way at Strubby if the airfield is needed for flying again.

Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Lincolnshire, where there are a lot of these aerodromes, applications have been made, and since it is the woman who has to put up with the inconvenience and will decide whether her man remains on the land for getting the food or not, will he make it a matter of urgency, and really do something about it?

Mr. de Freitas: I shall certainly look into points of delay which the hon. Gentleman can bring to my attention.

Mr. York: Is the announcement the hon. Gentleman has just made the general policy of the Air Ministry in regard to other areas?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir. Lincolnshire has no special right in this matter.

Craftsmen (Training Centre)

Mr. McAdam: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of

training schools there are for craftsmen enlisted in the R.A.F.; and where they are situated.

Mr. de Freitas: There are 18. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I will, with his permission, circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the R.A.F. stations concerned:

Cosford, Staffordshire.
Corsewell, Wigtownshire.
Compton Bassett, Wiltshire.
Cranwell, Lincolnshire.
Debden, Essex.
Farnborough, Hampshire.
Halton, Buckinghamshire.
Hednesford, Staffordshire
Hereford.
Henlow, Bedfordshire
Kirkham, Lancs.
Locking, Somerset.
Melksham, Somerset.
Madley, Herefordshire
Mill Green, Herts.
St. Athan, Glamorgan.
Weeton, Lancs.
Yatesbury, Wilts.

Night Flying Complaints

Mr. Dye: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the disturbance to the inhabitants of Feltwell caused by low-flying aircraft during the hours of darkness, he will give consideration to the complaints brought to his notice by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, and alter the training arrangements from the nearby airfield.

Mr. de Freitas: I sympathise with these complaints, but I am afraid that night flying training must continue from Feltwell. We have already reduced this training over all the United Kingdom to a bare minimum, and we are doing all we can to avoid centres of population.

Low Flying Complaint

Mr. Attewell: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps are proposed to avoid the low and dangerous flying in the neighbourhood of Blaby, Leicestershire, particulars having been sent to his Department.

Mr. de Freitas: An officer was sent at once to look into this complaint, but no one could give particulars to identify the aircraft. Whenever a breach of the regulations is established, the pilot is punished severely. The civil police agree that low flying is not prevalent near Blaby, and


I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no special danger from the aircraft which fly over there.

Mr. Attewell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a series of complaints, but on this particular occasion there was an interview reported in the Leicester Press, giving the name of the officer who was actually flying the machine, the officer being a member of the American Air Force?

Mr. de Freitas: I was not aware of that. I was aware of the complaint that was sent to my Department and of the investigations that we made. If the hon. Gentleman will bring the matter to my attention I will, of course, look into it.

Mr. Attewell: Will the hon. Gentleman receive the actual report from the Press?

Mr. de Freitas: Certainly, if it is brought to my attention.

Oakington Airfield (Roads)

Mr. Stubbs: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will open the roads through Oakington aerodrome or provide alternative routes; and if he is aware that the roads leading into the village have been closed for seven years, causing great inconvenience to the inhabitants and tradespeople.

Mr. de Freitas: We are planning to keep the airfield at Oakington for permanent flying use. This would involve constructing a suitable diversion for the one public road that is still closed, from Long Stanton St. Michael to Oakington village. We cannot, of course, carry out these proposals until the Ministry of Transport have obtained statutory authority for them, which in turn involves the War Works Commission hearing any local objections.

East Africa (Release Delay)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the reason for the delay in release of officers in Groups 29 and 30 and other ranks in Group 30 stationed in the Nairobi area; for how long they are likely to be delayed; and what are the prospects for the next few groups in that area.

Mr. de Freitas: Release promulgations apply to the Royal Air Force wherever stationed, and I know of no special difficulties or delays in transport from East

Africa. If the hon. and learned Member will give me particulars of any case he has in mind, I should be glad to look into it. I should add that the release of accountant officers has reached only Group 28 throughout the Service, but otherwise this month there are no branches or trades in which the release of officers is below Group 30 or airmen below Group 35.

Mr. Pritt: Has the hon. Gentleman made inquiries, because I can let him have a copy of the order issued on the station?

Mr. de Freitas: Certainly, I have made inquiries, or I would not have made this statement. My answer is based on the inquiries that have been made. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me have that order I will certainly look into it.

Stores, Turnhouse (Disposal)

Lord John Hope: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that at Turnhouse aerodrome in the latter part of May, 1946, large quantities of waterproof equipment, including groundsheets and Wellington boots, were deliberately destroyed, and that this practice has been indulged in at other aerodromes also; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. de Freitas: I have not been able to obtain any evidence to support the statements made by the noble Lord. If he will send me details I will gladly look into the matter further.

Lord John Hope: In view of that most disappointing answer, I take it the answer to the second part of my Question is in the negative?

Mr. de Freitas: No, not quite, because I said I would look into any matter if the noble Lord sends me details.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCE CASES (ACCELERATION MEASURES)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Attorney-General whether the Government propose to take any action, prior to the Report of the Denning Committee, to accelerate the hearing of defended and undefended divorce cases.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Yes, Sir. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is in constant communication with the Lord Chief Justice


and the President of the Divorce Division, and it has been decided to recommend to His Majesty the King the appointment of additional Commissioners of Assize to assist the Judges on Circuit, and in addition to appoint Special Commissioners to sit both in London and in the provinces.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE POSSESSION CASES, LONDON

Mr. Sparks: asked the Attorney-General what percentage of decisions have been made in each county court in the Metropolitan Police area for the first six months of 1946 in favour of owners and tenants, respectively, upon applications made for possession of housing accommodation.

The Attorney-General: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how many of these cases were successful appeals by the tenants, and in how many did evictions actually take place?

The Attorney-General: Over the courts in which the position has been examined,

Court.
Total Number of Orders made.
Orders in favour of Owner.
Number of Possession Warrants executed
Orders in favour of Tenant.





Number
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.


(1)


(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)


Barnet
…
…
168
143
85·1
9
25
14·9


Bloomsbury
…
…
226
199
88·1
24
27
11·9


Bow
…
…
165
133
80·6
26
32
19·4


Brentford
…
…
258
214
82·9
29
44
17·1


Bromley
…
…
341
323
94·7
15
18
5·3


Clerkenwell
…
…
160
139
86·9
21
21
13·1


Croydon
…
…
334
323
96·7
23
11
3·3


Edmonton
…
…
230
186
80·9
23
44
19·1


Epsom
…
…
266
248
93·2
18
18
6·8


Ilford
…
…
377
360
95·5
12
17
4·5


Kingston
…
…
247
220
89·1
23
27
10·9


Lambeth
…
…
200
189
94·5
28
11
5·5


Marylebone
…
…
33
28
84·8
15
5
15·2


Shoreditch
…
…
151
129
85·4
32
22
14·6


Southwark
…
…
10
10
100
2
—
—


Uxbridge
…
…
181
154
85·1
13
27
14·9


Wandsworth
…
…
202
202
100
23
—
—


West London
…
…
150
118
78·7
18
32
21·3


Westminster
…
…
42
35
83·3
8
7
16·7


Willesden
…
…
410
345
83·4
41
64
16·6


Woolwich
…
…
145
120
82·8
17
25
17·2


Totals
…
…
4,295
3,818
88·9
420
477
11·1

the average percentage of orders in favour of applicants was 90 per cent., and the average percentage of cases in which warrants were issued and evictions consequently took place was only 10 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any figures with regard to appeals about which I asked him?

The Attorney-General: That does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how the proportion of successful plaintiffs in these courts compares with the average proportion of successful plaintiffs in the country as a whole?

The Attorney-General: We have examined the position in about 20 courts in the Metropolitan area. We have not had an opportunity of taking out the figures for the 400 or so courts in the whole of the country. Moreover, one has to have regard to different housing conditions in different court areas, and I am not quite sure that any proper comparison could be drawn from figures of that kind.

Following are the figures:

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Flying-Boat Base

Mr. McKie: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is intended to develop the potentialities of Lochryan, Wigtownshire, as a flying-boat base.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): Loch Ryan is one of the sites which have been considered by the committee appointed by my noble Friend under the chairmanship of Lord Pakenham to review the various proposals received for the establishment of a permanent flying-boat base in the United Kingdom. Until the Report of the committee, which my noble Friend received today, has been considered, I am unable to make any statement in regard to particular sites.

Mr. McKie: If I put down a Question before the Recess, will the Parliamentary Secretary be in a position to answer then?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot undertake to do it. This report is based on civil aviation considerations, but there are many other considerations involved in the selection of permanent sites.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects to be able to make a statement as a result of the Report of the Cadman Committee?

Mr. Thomas: I have just given the answer. It depends upon consultation with other Members of the Government on other aspects of the matter.

Major Bruce: Could my hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to publish the Cadman Committee's Report in due course?

Mr. Thomas: That also depends on consultations now taking place.

Hum (Service and Maintenance Staff)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware that there are a number of men employed at Hum, particularly in the component shed, who are only working for a few hours a week; and if he will look into the matter.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I assume the hon. and gallant Member refers to the staff

employed at Hum by the British Overseas Airways Corporation for the service and maintenance of the Corporation's aircraft. This work is important and urgent, and it is necessary that the staff should be sufficient to deal expeditiously with it. Inevitable fluctuation in its flow, however, may result in short periods during which some of the staff are not fully occupied.

Colonel Wheatley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the men feet they are not doing much of a job and are being paid for work they are not doing; and that the regular system is that they are standing there doing nothing? Would the hon. Gentleman make further investigations if I give him the names of the men who make the complaints?

Mr. Thomas: As I think there may be some misunderstanding about what is in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind, I would very willingly do that. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to men who are kept standing by for servicing and maintaining aircraft, he will realise that they must be ready to deal with any emergency.

London-West of England

Mr. Beechman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what plans he has for establishing a civil airline from London to West Cornwall.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The schedule of internal air routes which British European Airways intend to operate includes the route London-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth-Land's End-Scilly Isles. It is planned to use Avro XIX aircraft.

Mr. Beechman: In preparing his plans, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are a number of superfluous Service aerodromes in Cornwall now, which have been created at great expenditure, not to say waste in some cases of agricultural land, labour and money; and will he see that these aerodromes are used, as they may be useful?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think any difficulty will arise about aerodromes in Cornwall. The hon. Gentleman will realise that many R.A.F. aerodromes, while admirably suited for military purposes, are not suited for serving civil purposes.

North-East Coast

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the construction of an airport on the North-East coast.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir. I am unable to comment on particular cases in advance of the general statement which my noble Friend has undertaken to make.

Bermuda—Baltimore

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, in the interests of British prestige in the air and of the Bermuda tourist trade, he will take steps to secure the continuance of the dollar-earning air service of B.O.A.C., between Bermuda and the U.S.A., instead of allowing the service to be discontinued in the autumn.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: My noble Friend is in consultation with the British Overseas Airways Corporation with regard to the continuance of the Corporation's flying-boat service between Bermuda and Baltimore.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when he will have a decision on this matter?

Mr. Thomas: I hope before the Recess; perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question. It is our earnest desire to see this service continued.

Bristol Channel

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he can now give the details of restarting the air services across the Bristol Channel from South Wales; how often this service will operate and the charges that will be made.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The air service between Cardiff and Weston-super-Mare will be opened as soon as the ground organisation can be completed. It is proposed to use D.H.89 aircraft and to operate an intensive shuttle service according to the traffic. The fares will be 9s. single and 16s. 6d. return. The service will later be extended to Bristol. The aerodromes to be used are Pengam Moors (for Cardiff), Whitchurch (for Bristol), and Weston-super-Mare, The arrangements for the

handling of passengers will at first be of an extempore nature.

Mr. Freeman: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, which will be very welcome to the people of South Wales, may I ask him further whether this service will link up with other services in the country, whether any notice or booking in advance will be necessary, and whether garage facilities will be available for passengers?

Mr. Thomas: When the service is extended to Bristol it will link up, eventually, with services in all parts of the country. Naturally, there will not be connections from Weston-super-Mare, where the traffic will be of a seasonal nature. It is planned to operate it as an intensive shuttle service, so that as passengers come along they will be taken, and it will not be necessary to have a timetable.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Bread Rationing

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements exist for the supply of bread and flour to deep-sea fishermen who have to remain at sea for periods of one to three weeks.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Supplies of bread, flour and ships' biscuits for deep-sea fishermen are obtained by the masters or owners from ships' stores dealers in accordance with the provisions of the Ships' Stores (Control) Order, 1942. These arrangements will continue under the bread rationing scheme.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Navy personnel are issued with white flour because the bread will not keep, anti will he see that fishermen are given equal treatment?

Mr. Strachey: I am very willing to look into that.

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider increasing the rationed allowance, stated in the bread-rationing scheme, for women who are responsible for performing all the housework in the homes of families with more than three members, and thus bringing them more into line with the manual workers' scales.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider either increasing the proposed bread ration for children, or grading the housewife with children as a manual worker.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Minister of Food, in connection with the proposed bread-rationing scheme, if he will consider giving a bigger allowance to children between three and five years of age.

Mr. Strachey: As I have informed the House, I have decided to raise the allowances for children and adolescents as follows:——

Children under one year, from 2 to 5 oz.
Children from 1 to 4, from 4 to 5 oz
Children from 4 to 5, from 4 to 9 oz.
Children from 5 to 11 from 8 to 9 oz.
Children from 11 to 18, from 12 to 13 oz.

Mr. Molson: Will the Minister say by how much that will reduce the estimated economy due to the rationing?

Mr. Strachey: I am quite willing to repeat, as far as I can, the exact words I used the day before yesterday——

Mr. Molson: I mean the percentage.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, the percentage. From 10 to 7 per cent.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that before the war thousands of housewives had to do without bread altogether in order to give a scant amount to their children?

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food whether, to enable bakers and confectioners to accurately assess the public demand, he will alter the regulation in the bread-rationing scheme that permits holders of the coupons to exchange them at any shop, to a system that requires the customer to register at one particular shop and at the same time reserve for the consumer the right to change at specified intervals, also preserving the facilities for travellers.

Mr. Cluse: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the widely held opinion that the rationing of bread would be greatly facilitated and queues obviated if consumers of bread were registered; and if he will take steps to do this.

Mr. Strachey: I do not consider compulsory registration desirable in view of the variety of foods included in the scheme, and because of the imminence of the holidays, when many people will be away from home. But it will greatly assist both customers and bakers if as many people as possible deposit coupon pages or sheets with their regular retailers.

Captain John Crowder: What happens if the customer is out when the baker calls?

Mr. Strachey: Exactly what happens today. Once the coupons have been deposited, it gets over that difficulty entirely.

Mr. Harrison: In coming to that decision, which is a departure from the usual practice when dealing with perishable commodities, has the Minister fully taken into consideration the inconvenience that will be caused to the door-to-door salesmen and the housewives?

Mr. Strachey: Of course, we weighed the two factors up, and we think it would be too severe and stringent a measure to impose compulsory registration.

Mr. Eden: Would it not be fair to say that registration is desirable but that it is impracticable, and is not that one of the arguments against the rationing scheme?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I think compulsory registration would, on balance, be undesirable.

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he will facilitate the exchange of ordinary food points with bread coupons, or vice versa, and reduce the permissible number from eight to four.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that I cannot accept the suggestions.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is there any real reason why the Minister should not get rid of a very cumbersome piece of machinery by making it possible for housewives to take any surplus bread units and purchase points goods with them direct, or take any surplus points and purchase bread direct? Why put in this intervening machinery, which will be so cumbersome?

Mr. Strachey: We have naturally looked at that most closely, and it is a


very attractive suggestion which I should very much like to be able to adopt, but it would amount to putting bread on points, and it would outweigh the whole of the rest of the points scheme to such an extent that we do not feel we could guarantee the supply position of the rest of the points foods if that was done.

Mr. Chamberlain: Does it really make any difference? Is it not only a piece of cumbersome machinery?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, it makes a difference.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the Minister bear in mind the special advisability of trying to do this for people who live alone and who have suffered rather from rationing?

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid it could not be done for any one particular section of the population.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that, generally speaking, his conciliatory attitude in regard to the mechanics of this scheme will be very widely appreciated?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider introducing some scheme whereby charitable functions, parties and dances, etc., that are run for purposes other than private profit, will be allowed bread for refreshments when the bread rationing scheme is introduced.

Mr. Strachey: Charitable and social functions which already qualify for supplies of rationed foods will qualify for supplies of bread.

Mr. Lewis: Will that apply to functions held spasmodically by such organisations as that of the old age pensioners?

Mr. Strachey: In general, we propose to do in the case of bread the same as we have done in the case of other rationed foods.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: asked the Minister of Food if he will arrange to have pages of eight B.Us. sent to local food offices O.H.M.S., post free, in order to prevent bread rationing entailing consumers in extra cost.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that I cannot make the concession asked for.

Mrs. Gould: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is going to cause considerable hardship to very poor housewives, who will be wanting to get their bread rations changed for points, and who will have to send them through the post, or go by bus to the food office?

Mr. Strachey: It is an attractive suggestion. I have consulted with my noble Friend the Postmaster-General, but he cannot see his way to do it at the moment. I will consult him again on the matter.

Mr. Chamberlain: Will not the Minister reconsider this matter of the exchange, on the lines I have ventured to suggest?

Mrs. Gould: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a large number of housewives perform as heavy work as do many women manual workers, and will he consider putting housewives into the category of manual workers for the purpose of bread rationing.

Mr. Strachey: I am aware of the claims of the housewives, particularly of those with children. As I have announced in the House, I have arranged to increase the allowances for children so as to offer assistance to the housewife with children.

Mrs. Gould: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he made yesterday about increasing the ration will give very great satisfaction to the housewives and that, indeed, the method by which he has done it will impress the minds of housewives?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great hardship caused to women living alone, or independently with one or two relations? What is he doing for persons in that category?

Mr. Strachey: We shall see when the scheme is in operation, but I should not think that hardship will arise in those cases.

Mr. De la Bère: Will it ever come into operation?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that men living alone are quite satisfied, and cannot even cat their own rations?

Danish Produce

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the fact that Denmark has large reserves of food, he will take steps to make arrangements with the Danish Government to import a proportion of it.

Mr. Strachey: Since the early days of Denmark's liberation the United Kingdom has been and still is importing substantial quantities of food from Denmark, including a large proportion of that country's exportable surpluses of bacon, butter and eggs, and substantial quantities of cheese, fish and bacon factory offals. Negotiation with the Danish Government as to future supplies are at present proceeding.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the refrigerator plant in Denmark is full to capacity, that they want coal in exchange, and that we cannot send coal owing to nationalization——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must ask a question, not make a statement.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister also aware that the Danes are sending a trade mission to Russia to get coal in exchange for food, and that we are likely to lose it?

Mr. Strachey: I see no prospect of our losing the food.

Mr. Keeling: Could we not immediately get more food from Denmark if we had coal to offer in exchange?

Mr. Strachey: The negotiations at present going on with the Danes do not turn on the question of coal.

Sir W. Smithers: They do.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: May I ask whether Denmark will accept straight sterling, without exchange of goods?

Mr. Strachey: There is no question of payment or currency difficulties. There is no difficulty of that kind.

Wallsend Cooperative Society (Points Capital)

Mr. John McKay: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Wallsend Cooperative Society, Limited, with a 15 per cent. increase in registered customers, is getting 35 per cent. reduction in points goods; that the regional office has been informed; what steps he is taking to

improve the position for this society, which caters for 25,000 members; and if he will consider supplying points goods on the basis of registrations instead of the datum period.

Mr. Strachey: I am aware that the Wallsend Cooperative Society have made representations to the divisional food office at Newcastle. I am satisfied, however, that the Society have sufficient points capital to take up their fair share of the available supplies of points foods, and I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that these foods should be supplied on the basis of registrations.

Tea

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food what are the factors which prevent him abolishing tea rationing.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Food if he is now in a position to end tea rationing.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that the world production of tea has not yet sufficiently recovered to justify my abandoning rationing. In fact, we are at present consuming tea at the rate of 8g per cent. of our prewar consumption, and have not recently been quite replacing our stocks.

Mr. Gammans: Will the Minister publish the figures of the world production of tea, and of the stocks in this country on which this decision of his is based? Will he publish the figures?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I repeat that tea is a good example of particular commodities, to publish the stocks of which we have in this country, we are advised, would be a real disadvantage to our buyers. I must adhere to that decision.

Mr. Gammans: Why is it not a disadvantage to the buyers in those countries who have not rationed tea?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Strachey: I should be perfectly willing to answer, if I understood it. Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman would explain what is not a disadvantage to those countries that have not rationed tea.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman said that, because of the fact that we have to buy tea in the outside market, it


would be a disadvantage to us if we published the figures. I want to know why it is not a disadvantage for buyers in those countries where tea is not rationed.

Mr. Strachey: Do those countries the hon. Gentleman has in mind publish the stocks of tea held in those countries?

Mr. Gammans: They do not ration tea.

Mr. Strachey: What has that to do with it? It has nothing to do with the case.

Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend note the Opposition's concern for international free enterprise?

Food Offences (Punishment)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the present food shortage, he will consider increasing the penalties for infringement of the food regulations by imposing penal servitude and hard labour as the minimum sentence when found guilty.

Mr. Strachey: The scale of penalties imposed by the courts, which include sentences of imprisonment of 18 months, appears adequate.

Eire Supplies (Discussions)

Mr. McAdam: asked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken to enter into an agreement with the Government of Eire to purchase what surplus supplies of livestock, butter and eggs that country may have for export.

Mr. Strachey: Discussions began yesterday with representatives of the Eire Government on the whole question of future purchases of foodstuffs from that country.

Average Consumption

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food on what grounds the official announcement was issued by his Department that the quantity of food at present being consumed is only 7 per cent. less than before the war.

Mr. Strachey: The calorie value of the average civilian diet is currently estimated at 2,800 to 2,850 per head per day, that is, 7 to 5 per cent. less than the prewar average of 3,010 calories per head per day. This does not mean that each individual is eating 7 per cent. less than prewar; some are eating considerably less, others are eating

considerably more than they were able to buy before the war. Rationing and price control have brought the worst fed and best fed groups nearer to the national average.

Mr. Gammans: Does the Minister realise that this statement of his, which no housewife in any rank of society will accept——

Mr. Gallacher: Was the hon. Gentleman a member of a P.A.C.?

Mr. Gammans: Does the Minister realise that this statement made Americans believe, when the right hon. Gentleman went to the other side of the Atlantic, that there was no real food shortage in this country?

Mr. Strachey: That was not my experience on the other side of the Atlantic. It may be true, of course, that the 30 per cent. of the housewives, who, before the war, according to the report of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr), could spend less than 6s. per head per week on food, may now find it difficult to believe that anyone is eating any less food in this country at all. That I can believe.

Smoked Cod

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of smoked cod were imported into the United Kingdom in 1939, 1945, and the first six months of 1946; and how many tons of this came from Newfoundland in each of the three periods, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: Precise statistics of prewar imports of smoked cod are not available, but I understand that they were extremely small. None has been imported in 1945 or 1946.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINES AND SPIRITS (PRICES)

Mr. Cluse: asked the Minister of Food to what extent his regulations provide for the control of retail prices of certain spirits and wines, the prices of which have been communicated to him by the hon. Member for South Islington: and if he will take action against certain firms who are charging extortionate prices to the public.

Mr. Strachey: The retail prices of the spirits or wines referred to are not controlled.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister explain why he can control the prices of imported wines and cannot control the prices of home made spirits?

Mr. Strachey: There is a somewhat elaborate system of voluntary agreements in this trade which has worked quite well——

Mr. Keeling: I mean Government control.

Mr. Strachey: I should be unwilling to disturb those agreements as they are today. I am willing to review them, but at first sight, at any rate, they appear to be working quite well.

Mr. Cluse: But does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the list of prices sent to him by myself makes it appear that the voluntary arrangements are not carried out by a certain number of wholesalers?

Mr. Strachey: I think that these voluntary arrangements are not so perfectly uniform as complete compulsory control, but I should be 10th to extend them, because I think that on the whole the voluntary agreements are not working badly.

Mr. Hoy: Will the Minister note that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is asking for a further extension of controls?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER PRODUCTION

Captain Baird: asked the Minister of Food the output of beer on 30th September, 1945, and 1st April, 1946, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that I cannot give the information asked for by my hon. Friend, as figures of daily output are not available. With his permission, I will, however, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing beer production in September, 1945, March, 1946, and April, 1946.

Captain Baird: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in the Midlands brewers are circulating a statement to the Press saying that the cut of beer will be much more than 15 per cent. because of the increase in the output of beer between September, 1945, and April, 1946?, It may be that this is simply a political stunt.

Mr. Strachey: I can give those two figures straight away. Bulk barrels produced in September, 1945, were 2,767,323. In April, 1946, they were 2,806,392.

Captain Baird: What steps will be taken to refute the brewers' statement and the suggestion that the cut is one of 40 per cent? That must be completely untrue.

Mr. Strachey: We can publish the true figures, as I have just, done.

Following is the statement:


Home-made bees charged with Duty in the United Kingdom.


——
September, 1945.
March 1946.
April, 1946.


Standard" Barrels.
1,732,305
1,478,616
1,766,592


Bulk Barrels
2,767,323
2,303,148
2,806,392

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL WORKERS' STRIKE, PERSIA

Mr. Swingler: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the strike of 50,000 oil workers of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which led to bloodshed and disorder in Abadan on Sunday night, 14th July, what interruption has been caused in oil supplies from Southern Iran, and what action he has taken in respect of British interests.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): There has for some time been considerable political difficulty in Persia, which has had repercussions in the oil area of the South-West. A number of industrial factors have also contributed to the present situation in that area. The ostensible cause of the present strike appears to have been a demand for pay for the day of rest, Friday, by the Persian workers of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
This matter was under negotiation in Tehran between the Persian Government, the Company and the Labour leaders, and was being dealt with under the provisions of the labour law recently passed by the Persian Government. This law prohibits strikes and lock-outs until certain procedures have been observed. Notwithstanding this, a general strike of


the Persian workers began on 14th July. As disorder seemed imminent, martial law was declared in Abadan by the Persian authorities early in the morning on that date. On the evening of that day there was a clash between local political elements which resulted in casualties at present reported as 17 killed and 150 wounded.
I have had no reports of casualties among the British and Indian staff of the company. Some British members of the staff have, however, been confined to their houses by the strikers, but, as far as I know, they are receiving adequate supplies of provisions.
It has been made clear to the Persian Government that His Majesty's Government regard them as responsible for the safety of British lives and property. From reports so far received, it appears that there has been an interruption both in the flow of crude oil supplies to the refinery and in the refinery processes, but the exact extent is not yet fully known.

Mr. Warbey: Has the Foreign Secretary made any representations to the Persian Government regarding the repressive character of this new labour law, which seriously curtails the right to strike and would not be tolerated in this country in peacetime?

Mr. Bevin: I have not interfered with the Persian Government at all, and it is not my intention to do so. I think it is better for all other Governments to allow them to exercise their own powers.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent these troubles are caused by the intrigue and propaganda of the Soviet Government?

Mr. Bevin: I have not inquired into it.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the situation which has developed, will the Foreign Secretary consider publishing the reports of the delegation sent over to study the trade union position?

Mr. Bevin: I will look into it, but I have not had time to read them myself. Since I became Minister of Labour, and while I have been Foreign Secretary, I have taken every step open to me to see that proper conditions are observed in the oil areas of Persia.

Mr. John Lewis: Would it be creating a precedent to make representations to a foreign Government where British interests are involved?

Mr. Bevin: It is not improper, but I think that when labour laws have been carried by the Government at the request of the workers in that country, I ought not to interfere.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company have the reputation of being the best employers in Persia?

Mr. Bevin: I am not prepared to say what is the best, but I am prepared to admit that in all companies in Persia there is room for improvement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: With regard to the Debate for tomorrow evening on the bread rationing Order, can you, Mr. Speaker, give us any information as to the latitude which will be permitted?

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I made a statement now. Subject to general agreement, I am prepared to allow a reasonably wide Debate, but it must be understood that it must be directly relevant to the Order before the House, and that we cannot go into the whole situation in Europe and Germany, and that sort of thing. I want it to be understood that this must not be regarded as a precedent for Debates on future Orders. I am allowing a wider Debate which is rather outside the usual range on Prayers against Orders, because this is a major change affecting a major item of the people's food. It must not, therefore, be taken as a precedent for future Prayers against Orders, and it is on this account only that I am prepared to allow a reasonably wide Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it be in Order for the Opposition to lead a hunger march through the Lobby?

Mr. Snadden: Will it be possible to discuss at the same time the effect of oatmeal pointing, which is very closely related to bread rationing?

Mr. Speaker: Oatmeal does not come into the Order—I gather that oatmeal was


dealt with the other day by the Minister of Food. It would be widening the Debate far too much.

Mr. Snadden: May I point out that B.U. points can be surrendered in order to purchase oatmeal, and that the two matters are interlocked? We, in Scotland, feel that we cannot discuss bread rationing unless we are allowed to refer to oatmeal pointing.

Mr. Stephen: May I also point out that oat cakes form a fairly substantial proportion of meals in Scottish homes, and that during the whole period of rationing oat cakes have never been on points the same as biscuits in England? I am wondering therefore whether there could not be some latitude in the Debate.

Mr. Speaker: There is a Schedule to the Order, and oatmeal is not down among the foods mentioned—I looked at it this morning—and therefore it would be bringing in something extraneous to the Order. I must

say that discussion on oatmeal would not come within the limits of this Prayer.

Mr. Spence: May I point out that in the North-East oatmeal very largely takes the place of bread?

Mr. Speaker: Oatmeal does not come into the Order, and I do not see why we should discuss it. Oatmeal is also a food in my part of the world.

Mr. Spence: Oatmeal can be obtained only by surrendering points, and the necessary points can only be got by surrendering bread coupons.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that bread units can be surrendered for points, and points can be utilised to purchase tinned salmon, would tinned salmon then be a matter for Debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly the sort of point I was trying to make. If we can debate tinned salmon, why not oatmeal, or sardines? We must stick to what is in the Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords] be

exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 120.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[3.40 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.


Allighan, Garry
Fairhurst F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Farthing, W. J.
McNeil, H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Macpherson T. (Romford)


Attewell, H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Austin, H. L.
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P W.


Awbery, S. S.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gallacher, W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bacon, Miss A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Martin, J. H.


Baird, Capt. J.
Gibbins, J.
Mathers, G.


Balfour, A.
Gibson, C. W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Barstow, P. G.
Gilzean, A.
Medland, H. M.


Barton, C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Battley, J. R.
Gooch, E. G.
Monslow W.


Benson, G.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morley, R.


Bing, G. H. G.
Grenfall, D. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Grierson, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mort, D. L.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Murray, J. D.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Guy, W. H.
Nally, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hale, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Harris, H. Wilson
Oldfield, W. H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Harrison, J.
Orbach, M.


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.


Burke, W. A.
Harbison, Miss M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hicks, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Callaghan, James
Hobson, C. R.
Peart, Capt, T. F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Holman, P.
Perrins, W.


Champion. A. J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Chater, D.
Horabin, T. L.
Popplewell, E.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
House, G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hoy, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cluse, W. S.
Hubbard, T.
Pritt, D. N.


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Proctor, W. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Coldrick, W.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Randall, H. E.


Collins, V. J.
Irving, W. J.
Ranger, J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Janner, B.
Rankin, J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Reeves, J.


Carlett, Dr. J.
John, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rhodes, H.


Daggar, G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Richards, R.


Daines, P.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Keenan, W.
Robens, A.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Key, C. W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, E. M.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B. V.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Deer, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Shurmer, P.


Diamond, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dobbie, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Dodds, N. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Skinnard, F. W.


Donovan, T.
Lever, N. H.
Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Solley, L. J.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Sorensen, R W.


Dye, S.
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Edelman, M.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McAllister, G.
Stamford, W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mack, J. D.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. B.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McKinlay, A. S.
Stubbs, A. E.




Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Swingler, S.
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Walker, G. H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willis, E.


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Warbey, W. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Watson, W. M.
Wilson, J H.


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woods, G. S


Thurlle, E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Yates, V. F.


Tiffany, S.
Wigg, Colonel G. E.



Titterington, M. F.
Wilkes, L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Tolley, L.
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey. F T. (Sunderland)





NOES


Aitken, Hon. Max
Glyn, Sir R.
Pickthorn, K.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Ponsonby Col C. E.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Grimston, R, V.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Barlow, Sir J.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Renton, D.


Beamish, Maj. T. V H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Beechman, N. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Birch, Nigel
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ross, Sir R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Boothby, R.
Hurd, A.
Scott, Lord W.


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jennings, R.
Smithers, Sir W.


Braithwaite, Ll. Comdr. J. G.
Keeling, E. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spance, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Carson, E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Challen, C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Channon, H.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cole, T. L.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Turton, R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Marlowe, A A. H.
Vane, W M. F.


De la Bère, R.
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Draysan, Capt. G. B.
Mellor, Sir J
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Molson, A. H E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fletcher W. (Bury)
Mullan, Lieut. C. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Nutting, Anthony
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gage, C
Osborne, C.



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Peake, Rt. Hin. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Gammans, L. D.
Poto, Brig. C. H. M.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant

Orders of the Day — FINANCE (No. 2) BILL

As amended, further considered.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Purchase Tax. Exemptions and reductions of rates.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: I beg to move, in page 57, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Hand wringers, hand mangles and hand washing machines.
Those of us who have put down this Amendment realise that there have been opportunities to raise the matter previ-

ously, but I think it was generally anticipated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of his own volition;, would have removed the Purchase Tax on these essential items of domestic laundry equipment. Indeed, I know that representations were made in this respect even before the last Budget. What I want to stress is that we are not asking that the Purchase Tax should be removed from the electric washing machine of an expensive type which only goes into a certain type of household. What we are asking the Chancellor to do is to remove the tax from any hand equipment which is urgently required by the housewife to ease the burdens she has to bear from day to day. The heavy burden which the


housewife has to bear today more than at any other time because of such things as lack of coupons, due to causes over which the Government have had no previous control, has made it impossible for her to have sufficient clothes in order to have some at the laundry and at the same time some in the home. Therefore, washing in the home has become a necessity.
In these circumstances it is essential that laundry equipment be made readily available. This would help immeasurably to ease the housewife's burdens. She has to stand in queues of all sorts during the day; she has in addition many other things to do and often children to look after. There is no doubt that at the end of the day she is in a very fatigued condition. I suggest that the Chancellor should give consideration to what after all is a penalty on her, because Purchase Tax on this essential household equipment is some form of penalty. The Government are appealing to women to return to industry or to remain in industry if they are already in it. I think it would be a much stronger appeal if we were to show that we have due regard to some of their difficulties when they get home in the evening.
The birthrate, we are pleased to say, is going up. I think that no one can deny that in present conditions washing cannot be avoided it there is a baby in the home. I am sure the Chancellor will appreciate this. No doubt in the past he himself was brought into active consultation by his wife to assist in what I think is called "doing the smalls." It must not be said of him that he is responsible for adding to the heavy cost of motherhood at the present time. Even the most courageous Chancellor, I suggest, would not dare to put the Purchase Tax on perambulators That has not been done, but the Chancellor has taken the Purchase Tax off refrigerators and electric irons, and, so far as I am aware, it is quite impossible to iron clothes unless they have already been wrung out by some means or another. I suggest that it would be a measure of justice to the harassed housewife if the Chancellor made it possible for her to acquire this essential laundry equipment without being called upon to pay Purchase Tax which, in my view, might well have been removed last year.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a most estimable proposal. In my own part of the country, laundrying is becoming impossible because of the difficulties of travel. A housewife cannot induce the laundries to collect the clothes and return them when they have been washed, as used to be done in the old days. The result is that nearly every home irrespective of its description has to do its own laundry. I hope that the Chancellor will listen to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) and accept the Amendment. By doing so he will bring a very great blessing and a great assistance to housewives, particularly in the rural areas.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer: (Mr. Dalton): I am sympathetic to this proposal as I am to many other cases which have been put forward. If I had more revenue, if there were fewer essential objects on which I have to spend money, if it cost less to keep the cost of living within a certain level, and if a number of other factors were more favourable to the revenue, then I should not hesitate to accept the Amendment. But as things are, I regret that I cannot accept it shall put it down on the list of suggestions made from different parts of the House for due consideration next time. Beyond that I cannot go. I do not chide my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) at all, but I do make the point that he is a little late in the day in making this proposal. We are on the last stage before the Third Reading of the Bill, and as my hon. Friend knows, proceedings on Finance Bills are protracted, and stage follows stage in which there is a certain modicum of argument and brief debates on various topics. Several other suggestions were made on another stage of this Bill, and I undertook to consider them. I have selected some of them, and in a few moments I hope to move an Amendment to remove the Purchase Tax on several articles. The articles dealt with in this Amendment was not in the list, and this suggestion was not made by any Member in any part of the House. I do not say that if it had been made I could have included it, but if it had been ma de at an earlier stage, it stood a better chance of being taken into the balance with


various other suggestions that were made. If I made this concession it would cost the Treasury another £250,000 in a full year. [Interruption.] I said, it would cost the Treasury another £250,000.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to think that the interruption made sotto vocewas intended as an abuse of the Treasury. We were recalling that on Monday the Board of Trade stated that it was impossible to tell what the abolition of Purchase Tax on utility furniture would cost, and I ventured to suggest then that the Treasury would be prepared to give us an idea.

Mr. Dalton: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Treasury will always be prepared to chance its arm.

Captain Crookshank: That is about the last thing which the Treasury will do.

Mr. Dalton: The fact remains that this would cost £250,000 in a full year, which I cannot afford, in addition to the concessions already made. I will promise, however, to regard it kindly and sympathetically with a great number of other topics next year. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, in view of the sympathetic response which I have given to it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Before the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis) accepts the invitation of the Chancellor, I hope he will listen to a few words of commendation of his Amendment from this side of the House. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and press this Amendment to a Division. The Chancellor says that he would accept the Amendment if he had more revenue, and the Amendment itself, of course, would be more valuable, and even more costly, if we had more clothes and more soap. I commend the Amendment to the House on rather different grounds from those put forward by the mover. The articles named in it will be very badly needed in the next year or two, both by Members of His Majesty's Government and their supporters. Look what they are—hand washing machines, hand mangles and hand wringers. Well, Members on the Treasury Bench, like

Pilate, are continually washing their hands of responsibility, and surely, the mention of hand wringers must recall to every Member of the House the words of a great Englishman:
They may ring their bells now; before long they will be wringing their hands.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I find myself in agreement with the observations made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis) in commending this Amendment to us on the ground of the easement it would give to housewives. I am quite sure that that is a very good reason. The housewives of Bolton, who are crying for bread, are being offered hand wringers and hand washing machines by their Member. He is doing what he can to restore the position; at least, he has given vocal expression to a pious hope. Whether he will carry that hope into the Division Lobby remains to be seen, and no doubt the housewives of Bolton will watch him too. While the Chancellor is on sound ground in reminding us that there was an earlier opportunity for discussion of reliefs of Purchase Tax, surely it is not too late to consider what, after all, is an excellent suggestion and one which would help very much in the home. The time during which clothes are now retained in laundries before delivery— usually three or four weeks—has thrown an additional burden upon housewives who have to do laundry work at home. That position is due to labour shortage in laundries, to lack of petrol for delivery vans, and so on, and it is certainly more acute than I remember at any time during hostilities. I think that is a good reason why the right hon. Gentleman should consider this matter, and I do not think it is too late to consider it. As we look through the classes of goods which we discussed in Committee, and in respect of which concessions were made, I think one or two should appear lower in the list of priorities than the articles named in this Amendment. For instance, I regard a hand washing machine in my home—I do not know what would be the view of the right hon. Gentleman on this—as of greater value than a wig. I think this Amendment is excellent, and I shall have pleasure in supporting it if the hon. Member for Bolton tests the feeling of the House through the machinery of a Division.

Mr. Charles Williams: I cannot join with the Chancellor in chiding the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis) for bringing forward this Amendment at this stage. I regard this Amendment as the best bit of work which has been done on the other side of the House during all our lengthy Debates on this Bill. As there are no lady Members present, I wish to say a few words on behalf of the many women who voted for me in my division, and also for housewives generally. The point was put very well by the hon. Member, and was admitted by the Chancellor, that housewives are at present faced with great difficulties in running their homes. These machines are essential for two or three reasons. One is that a great many were destroyed by bombs during the war, and there has been little chance of replacement. It is very hard on those whose homes suffered damage, that they should have to pay tax on any replacement which they make now. Further, there are many newly married people, and others coming back from the Forces, who want these machines in their home. All would be glad if the Chancellor would give them a little relief. They would be especially pleased in my part of the country, where we work harder and more industriously than they do in the North of England.
How important this Amendment was, I did not fully realise until the Chancellor said bow much the concession would cost. Some of us ought to have put this matter forward at an earlier stage, but things were hastily conducted, and if there is any fault on my part in failing to raise this point earlier, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. At any rate, I desire to make up for that, by saying that I feel strongly on this matter now, and that I hope we shall divide on the Amendment. Whether the hon. Member for Bolton will have the courage to go into the Division Lobby on his own behalf, or whether he will think better of it, having been persuaded by the sweet notes of the Chancellor, I cannot tell. I hope, however, that the hon. Member will not feebly withdraw his Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will not lay himself open to being chided, not only by the Chancellor, but by his constituents for having put forward a good idea and then run away from it. I hope he will get support from every part of the House, for an Amendment which is so good that I

believe, with a little bit more persuasion, the Chancellor would give way on it.

Mr. J. Lewis: Mr. J. Lewisrose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot withdraw it if any other Member rises to speak.

Mr. Jack Jones: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) spoke about the people of Bolton crying for bread. I have some knowledge of that constituency, and I remember when the people literally did cry for bread, and cried in vain. This Debate is an illustration of how the Opposition always take an opportunity to make political kudos even out of washing machines and hand mangles. I see no virtue in hand mangles. I want the housewives of Bolton and Britain to be given an opportunity of having mechanically propelled machines, which will give some easement of their burden, at the earliest possible moment and at the least possible price.

Mr. Jennings: I support the Amendment. This is not a political matter. The hon. Gentleman Me senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) mentioned bread. I have not referred to bread, and I have no intention of doing so. This matter concerns housewives in all constituencies, and I think that the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) has done a very great service to housewives by moving the Amendment. I would not like to lose even this last-ditch opportunity of supporting something which would be of benefit to the electors in my constituency. I hope that, in spite of the Chancellor's argument about its being too late in the day to consider this Amendment, the hon. Member will not withdraw it, but will divide the House on it. This is a matter of great importance to housewives. I urge the hon. Member to stick to his guns and not to withdraw the Amendment in a sheepish sort of way.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) did his best to engender a good deal of heat into the Debate in the few words which he spoke. The fact that he spoke with such heat proves that he knows full well how failure by Members of his own party to press this Amendment will be received, not merely in Bolton, but in all Lancashire constituencies and throughout the country. I feel certain that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member knows that this is a very vital Amendment which should certainly have been accepted by the Chancellor and which, as it has been turned down by the Chancellor, should be pressed to a Division by the hon. Member and his friends. If he does not do so, I understand that my hon. Friends on this side intend to divide the House, and it will give me pleasure to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton and his friends will have the courage to go into the Division Lobby in support of an Amendment which is vital to the housewives of the country.
I rose to speak because I felt that a word should be said by a Scottish Member. This question of mangles and washing machines affects not only Lancashire, and England, but the housewives of Scotland. I see that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is present, and I hope he will speak in support of this Amendment. I speak, of course, as the representative of a rural constituency, and I wish to support everything that was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) about the extreme difficulty which housewives in rural areas are experiencing in regard to laundries at the present time. That difficulty is caused by defective transport arrangements, and there is no sign of getting anything better under this so-called progressive Socialist Government. Transport difficulties have made it impossible for housewives through the long weary years, to get laundry back in quick time. If the Chancellor could have seen his way to accept the Amendment, he would have gone a long way to remove one little grievance of the housewives, and he would have strengthened his own position and the ever-weakening position of the Government at this critical

time. There can be no question that housewives are suffering very great hardships, and they will have to suffer far greater hardships in a few days' time. Why cannot the Chancellor even now say that, if he cannot accept the whole of the Amendment, at all events he is in agreement with the spirit of it, and that when the next Finance Bill is introduced— [HON. MEMBERS: "He said that."] I am delighted to hear it. I should prefer it to be done now. As the Chancellor has not accepted the Amendment, it will give me great pleasure to support it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Beechman: As a bachelor, I was greatly moved by the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on the matter of newly-married couples and people about to be married. As he spoke, I thought particularly of the hard work done in Cornwall by those who have married tin miners, fishermen and men who work in the china clay pits. These people have to work extremely hard in regard to changes of clothes, and this Amendment would be of the greatest assistance to them. I cannot see how the House, once this matter has been brought to its notice, can refuse to accord overwhelming support to the Amendment.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I wish to say a word or two, more in sorrow than in anger, about the attitude of the Chancellor. I tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to abolish the tax on electrical washing machines, and now that he does not propose to abolish it on hand washing machines, what is the poor housewife to do if she can get neither? I suffer from the fact that my laundry collects and returns only once every five weeks. I should be very glad to follow the example of a Member of another place and do the weekly washing and mangling myself if only I could buy a hand machine, or preferably an electric machine, for use in my own household. Speaking as the representative of a constituency which is partly in Lancashire—the county in which is situated the constituency of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment— and partly in Cheshire, I feel that I am entitled to speak on behalf of both Lancashire and Cheshire women who are, I know, suffering very serious disadvantages because of the difficulty they have in obtaining these articles which are so


necessary, particularly in the smaller households. They cannot afford to pay the very stiff prices which those of us who are able to send goods to the laundry are having to pay today. They are suffering severe hardship, first, owing to the difficulty of obtaining these machines at all, and second, when they do, because if they do get the machines they have to pay the higher price which results from Purchase Tax. The Chancellor has, apparently, hardened his heart both against the electrical machines and against those which involve more severe labour—the hand operated machines—but I hope he will follow the example of one of his colleagues, and apply second thoughts in this case and make the decision asked for by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

Mr. Stanley: I should certainly not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he is the senior or junior Member for Bolton, but let us at any rate call him "the other Member for Bolton." [HON. MEMBERS: "The senior Member."] Very well, the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones). The hon. Gentleman came to the assistance of his colleague not with any argument addressed to this Amendment whatsoever, but simply with a gibe thrown out at hon. Members on this side that the party behind me were, as usual, ready to take any opportunity of gaining political kudos. What does the

hon. Gentleman call this Amendment but an attempt to gain political kudos?

Mr. J. Lewis: Mr. J. Lewisrose——

Mr. Stanley: I intend to finish first. If the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment believes in it and is prepared to back up his opinion in the Lobby, when we come to a Division, I shall be perfectly prepared to concede that he really means what he says. But if now that he has moved the Amendment and the Chancellor has given a perfunctory reply, the hon. Member withdraws it, then I shall say that that falls under exactly the same charge—an attempt to gain political kudos.

Mr. J. Lewis: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down I would ask him to concede that the remarks of my hon. Friend were directed to previous remarks by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), who suggested that the women in our constituency were crying out for bread, which is entirely untrue.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prove in the Division Lobby whether it is true that they are crying out for hand wringers and band mangles.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 227.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[4.25 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Drewe, C.
Langford-Holt, J.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Barlow, Sir J.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Linstead, H. N.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Fletcher W. (Bury)
Lipson, D. L.


Bennett, Sir P.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Birch, Nigel
Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gammans, L. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Boothby, R.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bossom, A. C
Glyn, Sir R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Bower, N.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gridley, Sir A.
MacLeod, Capt. J.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J, G.
Grimston, R. V.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Harris, H. Wilson
Marples, A. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Marsden, Capt. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Carson, E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir J.


Challen, C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Molson, A. H. E.


Channon, H.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Cole, T. L.
Howard, Hon. A.
Mullan, Lieut. C. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Nutting, Anthony


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Keeling, E. H
Pitman, I. J.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G-
Ponsonby, Cc' C. E.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O




Ramsay, Maj. S.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Studholme, H. G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Scott, Lord W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
York, C.


Smithers, Sir W.
Teeling, William
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Snadden, W. M.
Vane, W. M. F.



Spearman, A. C. M.
Wadsworth, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Spance, H. R.
Wakefield, Sir W. W,
Lieut.-Col. Dower and


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D.
Mr. Beechman.


Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Medland, H. M


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gallacher, W.
Monslow, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Awbery, S. S.
Gibbins, J.
Morley, R.


Ayles, W. H.
Gibson, C. W
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gilzean, A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.


Baird, Capt. J
Gooch, E. G.
Murray, J. D.


Balfour, A.
Goodrich, H. E.
Nally, W.


Barstow, P. G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Naylor, T. E.


Barton, C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Battley, J. R.
Grierson, E.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Benson, G.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J
Oldfield, W. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, Capt. R. J
Orbach, M.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Guy, W. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hale, Leslie
Parkin, B. T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hall, W G. (Colne Valley)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J.
Perrins, W


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Burden, T. W
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G (Leeds)


Callaghan, James
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Chamberlain, R. A,
Horabin, T. L.
Randall, H. E.


Champion. A. J
House, G.
Ranger, J.


Chater, D.
Hoy, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Reeves, J.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Robens, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sargood, R.


Collindridge, F.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Scollan, T.


Collins, V. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S E.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Colman, Miss G M.
John, W.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Cook, T. F.
Keenan, W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Shurmer, P.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Simmons, C. J.


Crossman, R. H. S
Kirkwood, D.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skinnard, F. W.


Daines, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Leslie, J. R.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lever, N. H.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Logan, D. G
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, S, O. (Merthyr)
McAllister, G.
Stamford, W.


Deer, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Diamond, J.
McGhee, H. G.
Stross, Dr. B.


Dobbie, W.
Mack, J. D.
Stubbs, A. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dye, S.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Edelman, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Ewart, R
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tiffany, S.


Fairhurst F.
Marquand, H. A.
Titterington, M. F.


Farthing, W. J.
Martin, J. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Foot, M. M.
Mathers, G.
Walker, G H.


Forman, J. C. 
Mayhew, C. P.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)







Warbey, W. N.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Wilson, J. H.


Watson, W. M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wise, Major F. J.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Woods, G. S.


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Yales, V. F.


Wigg, Colonel G. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)



Wilkes, L.
Willis, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Wilkins, W. A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bing.


Question put, and agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end, to insert:

"CLASSES OF GOODS BECOMING EXEMPT ON 22ND JULY, 1946

Wigs.

Glass chimneys and similar primary glasses, being chimneys and glasses designed for oil or candle lamps.

Fireguards.

Smoothing irons and pressing irons, being irons of a kind used for domestic purposes. Acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps.

Electric dry batteries of not more than six volts.

Clasp knives (but not including razors or goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares).

Vermin traps.

Projectors for slides (including projectors for filmstrips but not including epidiascopes nor cinematograph projectors).

Lenses, and other parts of, and accessories to, projectors for slides.

Vessels primarily designed for propulsion otherwise than by the occupants themselves and parts of, and accessories to, such vessels.

Cinematograph films, film strips and lantern slides, being films, film-strips and slides containing pictures for exhibition by means of a projector.

Perhaps we have now reached relatively uncontroversial ground, since I am about to propose a series of concessions, some by way of total remission of tax and some by way of abatement of tax, most of which were asked for by hon. Members in the Committee stage. Perhaps it would be convenient if I say a word on each one of them.

It was my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), whose head is well covered as yet, who took an interest in wigs, or as he politely called them, transformations. I have thought it reasonable to meet his request. The cost will be so small that we are not putting a ticket on it. The cost is what is technically called negligible. If it were not so, I should not have given the concession. Frankly, I have got along without the aid of these objects which it is now proposed to free from tax. I do not regard them as in the highest order of priority, but the cost will be practically nothing. I am advised that a number of people, such as those who have suffered from shock and

illness and various other maladies, wear wigs, and that it would not be right to resist my hon. Friend's plea. Men can struggle along without them but there are some ladies to whom they are necessary. This is the human aspect of the matter. I am informed that there are many cases of ladies who, by reason of illness, have to wear things of this sort and for those reasons, we must give the matter sympathetic treatment.

From wigs I pass to glass chimneys adjusted to oil lamps or candle lamps. This concession will cost £50,000 a year, not a very large sum. This concession is specially designed for the benefit of people who dwell in the country where neither gas nor electricity is obtainable. I gave an undertaking in regard to oil lamp chimneys. I here extend it to candle lamps because it is not practicable, nor should I wish, to draw a distinction between the two. All similar lamp glasses will be exempted.

I come to fireguards. Exemption in this case will cost £50,000 this year, and £100,000 in a full year. The case was reasonably argued in favour of this concession by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), who said that fireguards for the protection of children would he a reasonable object of Purchase Tax concession. Therefore, I propose this remission to the Committee.

Then we come to electric irons, and smoothing and pressing irons. I said that I would give the concession as regards electric irons. I have been anxious not to seem to discriminate in favour of one sort of iron, rather than another. Therefore, the concession will cover not only electric irons, but gas and charcoal irons, and also the old-fashioned flat iron, the kind of iron which is operated by means of unaided muscle by the lady or gentleman in question, and not by electrical or other aid. They are all included and they are all exempted. The estimated cost of that exemption in a full year will be £500,000, which is getting more serious for the Revenue; but we will face it.

Next, I come to acetylene cap lamps and hand lamps. My hon. and gallant


Friend the Member for Workington (Captain Peart), who is now having a cup of tea, and the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) both took an interest in this matter. I was asked to exempt miners' lamps as such, but that is neither necessary nor, in principle, defensible. I wish to exempt lamps used by miners and any lamps of similar kind used by other workers in industry. The words proposed will exempt all non-safety lamps most commonly used by miners. Safety lamps have always been exempted since the inception of the Purchase Tax. The cost here is also negligible.

I come to electric dry batteries. This concession was originally proposed in the interests of the deaf. I have looked at it to see how we can define it so as to limit it to deaf aids. That is not possible. It cannot be done in that way. Therefore, I have deliberately gone further and incurred some further loss of revenue by exempting batteries used in deaf aids. They may also be used in other ways, but that fact we must take in our stride and accept. The cost of this concession, in the form in which I have put it down, will be £750,000. That is substantial. I ask the Committee to note that this concession will cost a good deal of money, but I hope the concession will be particularly appreciated by deaf people.

The next item is clasp knives such as are carried by sailors in the course of their work. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison) proposed it, but we have had to extend it a little in order to make it workable. The hon. and gallant Member asked for the concession in respect of jack knives, but that is not a category which we can easily define and administer. Therefore, we have extended it to clasp knives. The concession will cost £200,000 in a full year.

I come to vermin traps. These were thought to be important by some hon. Members, and again the figure involved is negligible—nothing of which the Treasury need take account. In view of the ardour with which the Amendment on this subject was pressed, I have included vermin traps, and we may hope that they will be useful in saving the food supply for human beings and in various other ways.

Then we come to projectors for slides, including projectors for film-strips. The concession will cost £25,000 this year, and a good deal more next year. The exemption relates to articles mainly used for educational purposes, and covers all of what are called still projectors. With regard to other types of projectors—sub-standard cinematograph films and so on— the tax has already been reduced from too per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. We have dealt pretty well with this section of educational activities. The concession on lenses of magic lanterns and so on—we need much magic in our lives—is consequential on the remission on stills.

We had a conversation about sailing vessels in Committee. I am proposing to exempt sailing vessels. I said in the course of the Debate that I recognised that there was a special case for the exemption of sailing vessels in view of the national value attaching to seafaring people who knew their way about in boats in all conditions of weather. Parts of and accessories to such vessels are also included. It is a little difficult to be sure of the cost. Usually the Treasury is willing to offer a figure, but here we shall bracket it between £50,000 and £100,000 a year. It is difficult to estimate it more closely.

I was pressed to take the tax off wallpaper altogether, and the case was well put from both sides of the House. I agreed to cut it down by half this year, and we may be able to go the rest of the distance another time. It is proposed here to cut the tax down from 33⅓ per cent. to 16⅔ per cent. The cost will be half a million pounds a year, but it will be more as the years go on, as more paper is produced and as more houses are being papered. That is not the end of the concessions I am making, but includes those dealt with in this particular Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wallpaper?"] I beg pardon. Wallpaper is the subject of a separate Amendment, but I thought it would be convenient to speak of it now. Perhaps I might add that I have also made a concession on silk goods. There is another Amendment to which I shall be able to make a favourable reply.

When we entered on the Committee stage, I said I had been looking into the general position and that it would be possible to make further allowances to the extent of £2 million in a full year. That is following upon the concessions in the


field of Purchase Tax alone—I am not now talking of other concessions—of £15¼ million in a full year in my original Budget proposals. That does not include Entertainments Duty and other remissions. I then looked at the position in the light of the Committee discussions, and entered upon these discussions with a figure of £2 million in my mind. As far as we have gone, including wallpaper and the silk goods, I have stretched that a good deal, and I have now got a scheme of remissions amounting in a full year to an additional £3,600,000. That is to say, the total remissions on Purchase Tax this year are just over £18 million, which is pretty good, having regard to the general tightness of the financial position. I hope it will be generally thought in the House, that this is a reasonable effort to meet the many claims put forward.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I welcome the Amendment which the Chancellor has moved. If I might have his ear, I should like to thank him—[Interruption.]. I said the right hon. Gentleman's ear, not his ears——

Mr. Dalton: I can hear the right hon. Gentleman perfectly.

Mr. Stanley: The speculation on this side was that somebody had given the Chancellor of the Exchequer a thick ear. All my hon. Friends join in thanking the Chancellor for the way in which he has tried to meet the wishes expressed in Committee and now in the House on this subject of Purchase Tax. It would, of course, have been possible for him to put down a number of Amendments and let us take them or leave them, but he has given hon. Members a chance of pressing the claims in which they are particularly interested. Of the actual classes of goods included in the Amendment which he has moved, I want to make special reference to one only. Despite the difficulties, and the increased expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet the case of the deaf. That is a case which has worried people for some time, and we are very grateful that he has been prepared to meet it.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that I am not satisfied—and I doubt whether he is satisfied either—that, if we are now to expect

for several years large reductions in the Purchase Tax, we have yet found the right way of going about it. Perhaps between now and the next Budget he will see whether there could not be some machinery which might start outside Parliament, but would come to Parliament in the end, and which would allow these claims to be sifted. I take as an example something which the right hon. Gentleman said to the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) a few minutes ago. I do not know whether it was in jest or serious, but what he said with regard to the Amendment dealing with hand wringers, hand mangles and hand washing machines was that it was too late, as we had already discussed all these on the Committee stage, that he had promised certain concessions on the Committee stage and that it was now quite impossible to add to them. Who could say that if the Amendment about hand wringers had been thought of a little earlier by the hon. Member for Bolton, and had been pressed by him with a little more vigour on the Committee stage, it might not have been found to take precedence in its importance over some of the other concessions? It might have come before wigs, vermin traps and even clasp knives. It is wrong therefore that it should depend merely upon whether some hon. Member or another thinks of a particularly desirable exclusion in time to have it discussed in Committee.
There was of course no other course open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the arrangement which we came to on the Committee stage was the best we could have come to in the circumstances, but I am not satisfied that it will always be the best, if we are to have the Purchase Tax as a permanent feature in our fiscal policy, but one which is liable, probably in the next few years, to be subject to considerable reductions. In those circumstances, it might be better to have some advisory committee to whom, in the first place, all these requests could go. This committee could screen the requests, and after that, with some report from the committee in their hands, hon. Members could exercise the right, which they must have, of moving Amendments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider between now and the next Finance Bill whether some alternative system could not be devised.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It would be entirely out of Order at this stage of the Finance Bill, to discuss the merits of the Purchase Tax as a whole, but I think that the comments made both by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, illustrate one aspect of the Purchase Tax in a very convenient way, and it might not be out of Order to draw attention to it. What is it that we are doing by these Amendments? We are picking out a number of hard cases and saying in effect, "In this instance the case is so hard, that the general principle of the Purchase Tax ought to give way to it; we ought not to press this matter on this class of person because the hardship involved is greater than we would like to inflict." But there are many other cases in which the hardship can be shown to be greater or to be not very much less, and then it becomes a kind of lottery as to who thinks of what first, and in what kind of atmosphere the particular Amendments happen to be moved—

Mr. Stanley: Mr. Stanleyindicated assent.

Mr. Silverman: —whether the House is charged by controversial excitement or is in, shall we say, a consultative or cooperative mood. It seems wrong that these questions should be decided in this way. I do not know whether the whole basis or background of the Purchase Tax could be reviewed so as to make a series of categories of hardships, or whether we might not, some day soon, abandon a tax which involves so much hardship and is so very unscientific, as machinery for raising revenue and meeting financial commitments. I do not know whether we could have a series of categories of hardships or not. I suppose there would be nothing very much to be said against a high Purchase Tax on luxury articles in times of financial and industrial shortage and stringency, but I think that this discussion illustrates how bad a tax a general Purchase Tax on all commodities can be.

Mr. Keeling: I would like to ask the Chancellor to elucidate one point. In talking about domestic irons, the Chancellor said that he intended to exempt both irons propelled by human muscle, and irons propelled electrically. There is a large class of electric irons propelled by muscle, and I want to ask whether it is intended to, exempt not only electric irons which are propelled electric-

ally, like trolley buses—which the Chancellor appears to think is the normal practice with an electric iron—but also electric irons propelled by human muscle, which I think is the normal practice.

Mr. Dalton: They are exempt anyhow.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said. To my mind, however, he emphasised a little too much the ground of hardship. If he had been here for the earlier Debate, he would have heard suggestions for the exemption of hand wringers, hand mangles, and washing machines, advanced on the ground of hardship and sternly resisted by the Chancellor on the ground of lack of finance I think there is a case for the review of this system of remission of Purchase Tax on a systematic and scientific basis, and I hope the Chancellor will look into it next year. The right hon. Gentleman is very keen on streamlined legislation, and in this Amendment there is every evidence of streamlining. These are classes of goods which become exempt on 22nd July. Today is 17th July, and I would ask the Chancellor to explain exactly what machinery makes these exemptions effective. They are meant to be effective, are they not, to the extent that if a sailor walks into a shop in Portsmouth and buys a clasp knife a week from today he gets it for 3s. 1d. instead of 3s. 11d., or whatever the relative prices are. What happens from now onward? If the Finance Bill receives its Third Reading on Friday, and there is some formality in the other place, does the Treasury issue a series of minutes, or does the Board of Trade operate by Order? In the latter case, is the Order laid upon the Table? What exactly happens within this very short space of time between today and 22nd July, when these tax remissions are meant to be effective?

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: As the Member who originally put down an Amendment in Committee to exempt batteries used in deaf aids, I would not like this occasion to pass without thanking the Chancellor for the concession he has given. The price of these batteries has risen considerably. They were about 6d. or 9d. before the war, they rose to 1s. 9½d during the war, and today they cost something in the neighbourhood of 2s. 3d. Also, by


some obscure working of the economic law of diminishing returns—which no doubt the Chancellor can explain but which I do not understand—as the price goes up, the quality and life of the batteries decrease. However, the best way of showing my gratitude is by not delaying the proceedings any longer. I thank the Chancellor for the concession

Mr. Harold Davies: I would like to thank the Chancellor for including in this reduction of Purchase Tax wigs or transformations. At three o'clock in the morning, during the earlier discussions on the Finance Bill, I moved to include them and I want to point out that I am not concerned with those "white curled clouds" that we call judges' wigs, mentioned in Cobbett's "Rural Rides"; I am concerned with the ordinary varieties. I have discovered one case in my own constituency of the daughter of a miner becoming completely bald at the age of five. Now nearly 17, she has to buy these transformations, and each one costs about £25 to £30. The girl has to buy two at a time and there is 100 per cent. Purchase Tax on them I think wigs are justly at the top of the list of those articles that are to be exempt, and on behalf of my constituent and of other people afflicted in this way, I thank the Chancellor for this concession.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: When, during the Committee stage, we were labouring diligently on this question of Purchase Tax reliefs and exemptions, the Chancellor stated that the area of concessions would be £2 million He may recall that I urged upon him a certain flexibility in this matter. I congratulate him on having enlarged the area of concessions to this figure of £3,600,000. Although I detect some inflationary signs around us, I do not think the Chancellor can be accused of improvidence by this very small extension of Purchase Tax reliefs. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Davies) because, had I been called a little earlier, I was going to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. I have always understood that there is a distinction between a transformation and a wig. A transformation is something worn by the afflicted person, generally a female, as in the instance just given, who has to wear something to conceal baldness.
I have always understood that to be a transformation as opposed to what I would describe as a uniform wig, as worn by the occupant of the Chair in this House, or in the legal profession, or the theatrical profession. Those, for instance, taking part in a period play such as "Merrie England," wear wigs as part of their uniform. I am not clear whether those wigs are also brought in—all wigs, whether necessary or otherwise.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: All are exempt, except the Tories.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I must not be led astray. I wish to endorse the words which fell from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with whom I am not frequently in agreement, as to the haphazard and higgledy-piggledy manner in which the Schedule has been put together. It is really
a thing of shreds and patches
such as one would not expect from a Government, who are continually reminding us that they have a mandate for orderly planning. There must be very considerable industrial repercussions as a result of some of these concessions. I would like next year to see some machinery such as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). These matters should be carefully examined on their merits, and not merely left to those who have bright ideas, very often after the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, particularly when we are told, as we were told this year, that there is to be a kind of Dutch auction. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said about these matters depending so much on the time and the atmosphere in the House. At 3 o'clock in the morning, hilarity often develops, and it becomes difficult to put over a serious argument. I endorse the suggestion that next year we should not have an auction, but that the Government should come before us with proposals for such relaxations as they think possible and proper. At the same tithe I hope they will be open to argument from any part of the House where it is thought that the list could be improved by being altered, or even extended. That would be a tidier method and I hope that by the time we have next year's Finance Bill before us, we shall have such a method.

Douglas Marshall: I rise to thank the Chancellor for one or two reliefs he has given, particularly in regard to irons, acetylene lamps, and sailing vessels. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has cleared up the question of the "remote control" iron. I did not quite understand what the Chancellor was implying at the time, or whether there was an iron which one can move about without arm control. I have never heard of one myself.

Mr. Dalton: They are all exempt, anyhow.

Mr. Marshall: The Chancellor paid tribute to seamanship, and recognised the vital importance of it to this country. By this remission, he will help small shipyards. I trust that the House will recognise the fact and will also pay tribute to the small shipyards Which will be absolutely vital to the security of this country should we ever be in danger. The Chancellor mentioned that the remission in regard to lamps involved a very small amount of money. I am informed that about 45,000 of these lamps are sold in a year. Although a considerable proportion are not subject to Purchase Tax, as in some cases the individual does not buy them, yet there must be a large number of individuals who do in fact purchase them I am convinced that the Cornish miner, who buys them extensively, will be very grateful to the Chancellor for taking off this tax. As he has seen fit to recognise this point in regard to miners' acetylene lamps, I trust that he will consult with the Minister of Fuel and Power to see whether imports can be saved by winning Cornish tin.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further information about
Vessels primarily designed for propulsion otherwise than by the occupants themselves and parts of, and accessories to, such vessels.
In the early hours of the morning, when this was discussed in Committee, he said that he would exempt sailing vessels. Of what he was thinking, I do not know—perhaps it was a nice electric canoe at Maidenhead and it seems that this would exempt electric canoes. On the other hand, there are sailing boats which have auxiliary motors as permanent fixtures, and

others which can have a small Evinrude motor attached. There are small rowing boats with auxiliary sails, used on the lochs in Scotland. The Chancellor appears to be getting into difficulties on this Amendment. It looks quite simple, but I would remind him that last year his Department got into great difficulties because at one time rowing boats used for racing were liable to tax, while skiffs, punts, canoes, and cabin boats were not liable. Some people had to pay the tax, and some did not. Eventually it was decided to tax them all. I think it a retrograde step to exempt sailing boats from tax, but not racing eights, or fours, or sculling boats. We ought to encourage the youth of the country to go in for such a healthy sport as rowing. Such a concession could involve only a very small amount, perhaps £5,000 or £10,000 a year, and oars could be exempted as well. I think it is wrong to exempt sailing boats and not to give a similar concession to rowing boats.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member is well aware that that is not in the Schedule.

Sir G. Fox: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What I am asking the Chancellor to do is to explain exactly what is included and what is not included in the concession.

Mr. C. Williams: I will spare the blushes of the Chancellor, or at any rate only cause one or two small blushes, in thanking him most sincerely for this Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman shows considerable wisdom in yielding to persuasion and help from all sides of the House, as I think he would be the first to admit. The concessions will help certain small industries in my division, and in other parts of the country, and from that point of view we are very grateful. I will not say anything more on that, because I do not want to be controversial on this subject, or to stir up any feeling between one part of the country and another. We all benefit. The Clyde will benefit and we will benefit in our part of the country in regard to sailing boats.
I think "vermin traps" is meant to be an inclusive term, and would include rat traps, and mouse traps, which have been discussed before. I hope, from a purely agricultural point of view, that the term will also include mole traps. They


are very difficult to get, and they are very necessary at the present time in many areas. If we in the agricultural districts do not have to pay Purchase Tax on them, then we are grateful for it. I think that this is one of the points that is meant to be included, but I would like to be sure, because, if it is not, the Chancellor even now can amend his own Amendment. I can see from the Chancellor's face that he is very receptive of this point, and I am sure that he would get full support for everything I am saying on this matter from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
I am speaking on behalf of agriculture in general, because although it may seem only a small matter in itself, divorced from agriculture, it has been one of our small troubles during the war. The concession will help many small people engaged in this occupation, and the matter has another side as well as the agricultural aspect. It will help to produce moleskins, which are valuable at present, as far as the women of the country are concerned who like to dress in furs. That is an additional reason why I have no doubt the Chancellor would be willing to support me. I wish him to be sure that I am grateful for the Amendment, and I only raise this point because I hope his Amendment is as good as I think it is, and as good as he would hope it to be.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: I want to add my word of thanks to the Chancellor for having introduced this new change into the Finance Bill by his Amendment, although it is not in the terms that I and my hon. Friends used when we originally put down an Amendment dealing with sailing vessels. I would like to know if this Amendment includes those vessels which the Chancellor accepted.

Mr. Dalton: Sailing vessels.

Sir P. Macdonald: If it does, I have no complaint to make. I am grateful to the Chancellor for the step he has taken. The remission of this tax will give great relief to the various people concerned in the building of these boats. I had one example given to me yesterday of a club which ordered a large number of vessels from small firms, and which cancelled the orders when the Purchase Tax was introduced, and which has now again given the order, which will employ a large num-

ber of people. That is only one example of thousands which I have had sent to me by the Boat Builders' Association, in a document which I received, before the Finance Bill was introduced, to say that there were 6,000 cancellations of orders as a result of the 33⅓ per cent. tax on sailing vessels. If this new Clause includes all the things which were contained in my original Amendment, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of my colleagues and myself for having met our request.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: By leave of the House, I would like briefly to comment upon, and to reply to, the points which have been raised. I am a little surprised that some hon. Members think that the way we have handled the Purchase Tax is a bad plan. After all, the broad position is that in my Budget I did what has been suggested should, in future, be done; I took the initiative in moving a large number of proposals for the removal of Purchase Tax on such things as pots and pans, dressers, kitchen furniture—a large number of things. That has gone down the wind. Everyone accepted it; there was no opposition. But that was some time ago. Our minds work very rapidly here, and that has all been discounted, as they say on the Stock Exchange when they get the American Loan.
I had in the first place considered what I could offer in the remission of Purchase Tax, after considerable study —not patchwork, as I think one hon. Member suggested—in the Treasury for months with my advisors. Some hon. Members wrote letters to me, others spoke to me, and taking account of all that. I put forward a programme of remission costing £15¼ million. I have to be careful, as I have been reminded, not to let purchasing power expand quicker than the production to meet it, or we shall get inflation, and no one will like that. Then. I should have thought, I took a most proper course. "The House of Commons should control finance"— how often is that said? Also, "The private Member, the Back Bench Member, should be allowed a voice; it should not be done at the dictate of a lot of Ministers with a mechanical majority," and so forth Therefore, it was reasonable when I said, "Let everyone have a go. Let everyone put Amendments


down. Let them speak, I will listen." I did listen—I listened round the clock once. That is surely the democratic way to do it.
What we—not I, but we as a body— may take credit for is that approval was first given to an initial scheme of reductions and exemptions, and then thereafter democratic discussions proceeded. Following that, I endeavoured to take account of the voices and the weight of argument behind the various propositions, picked a number out and put them down in further Amendments. I should have thought that that was an admirable plan. It is difficult to have an advisory committee or a separate report. One cannot let these things cut. It would be fatal to have a lot of "argy bargy" going on a month beforehand—people issuing interim reports to do this, that and the other. That would have a most unfortunate result. We must keep tax changes and the Budget secret up to the last minute. I do not want to have an advisory committee of busybodies——

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself but as far as I am concerned, my remarks were not intended by way of criticism of my right hon. Friend. I believe that all of us think that there are some disadvantages in this way of discussing taxation. I thought that they were incidental to a kind of tax which, whatever its justification may be in difficult and temporary circumstances, is, in principle, one to which many of us have always been opposed.

Mr. Dalton: Evidently there are two reasons. It would be out of Order for me to reply to points which have been raised by stating the case for the Purchase Tax. It is a case which, in my view, will continue strong for some years to come, partly from the point of view of revenue, partly as a check on inflation and partly to pay for a large number of desirable things which we all want. It is very much better to pay tax on the price of some articles which are not of the first necessity.
The Purchase Tax is coming off in strips year by year. We shall take it off necessary things first, and next, I hope, off less necessary things. But it is better to pay tax on articles not of prime necessity rather than to impose Income Tax on

the small incomes of wage earners and others who are not in a position to meet it. In this field, I am an advocate of indirect as against direct taxation. I am against the direct taxation of the working classes, but to develop that further would be out of order. For years to come we shall need a substantial revenue from Purchase Tax. The only way I can see of deciding how we can gradually pull in our horns—and I hope that gradually we shall be remitting various groups from year to year—is that whoever is Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to think about it and propose a plan in the House. That plan is not to be final, unalterable and immovable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is I or a successor, should listen to the ' arguments produced and then make subsidiary proposals. I think that what has been done this year is a model procedure. I do not feel at all inclined to suggest that it should be altered in the future. So much for the general question.
The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked a question about the date. It is customary to make these reductions to operate a few days after the date when we hope to pass the respective stage of the Bill. The rule about the matter is that these taxes operate at wholesale levels. We are now reverting in part to a discussion we had earlier about tax paid stocks. The Purchase Tax is imposed at wholesale, not at retail, levels. Any retailer who has obtained stocks on which the wholesaler has paid tax and passed the tax on to him is not compelled to reduce that tax by any Board of Trade order or regulation. Of course after the date when the goods are no longer taxed at wholesale levels, then the retailer is subject to the Board of Trade order, or whatever it may be. If the tax is remitted or reduced then pro tantothe permissible price far the retailer is reduced, if it is a price controlled article, as from the time he receives the new supplies which come forward at a later date than 22nd July.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Perhaps I was wrong in taking it as far as the retailer. By what machinery does the Chancellor ensure that the wholesaler is aware of the changes which Parliament is passing today by the time stated?

Mr. Dalton: He is not levied after 22nd July. The tax is no longer charged to him. It is not a difficult thing at all.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does he read it in the papers?

Mr. Dalton: He finds he is no longer being asked to pay. It is not difficult. It has always worked quite comfortably before. The retailers, we know, have the difficulty, but the wholesalers are only too pleased when they find they are no longer required to pay. The hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) asked whether the rowing boat was included. This exemption applies only to sailing boats. It specifically does not apply to rowing boats or eights. We argued that earlier. It seems to me the sailing boats had a stronger case for relief. To have extended the exemption over the wider field would have cost a good deal more money. Speaking broadly, I felt that the open sea was more deserving than the inland waterway at this stage, but no doubt later we can do something for boats propelled by their occupants along the Thames or the Cam or even the Isis, as I think it is called.

Sir G. Fox: What is the position of a sailing boat which has an auxiliary motor?

Mr. Dalton: Off hand, I would say, if it is primarily designed as a sailing vessel, it will be exempted. The words "primarily designed" would apply. I think that is all right. If it is constructed primarily as a sailing vessel it will be exempt. I was also asked about moles. The answer is that mole traps are included. Vermin traps include the mole trap, and I hope that will be satisfactory to agriculturalists everywhere and, not least, in Torquay.

Mr. C. Williams: Would it include traps for slugs?

Mr. Dalton: I should need notice about slugs. Mole traps will be covered by this. I hope that I have answered the questions which have been raised, or so many of them as I can answer without going outside the Rules of Order. I hope the Committee will now feel that this group of remissions should be adopted.

Mr. Peake: Before we part company with this Amendment in the name of the Chancellor, I hope that he will not close

his mind upon the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) also addressed himself in the course of a somewhat general discussion upon the nature of the procedure which the Committee and the House have adopted in dealing with these remissions of Purchase Tax. The Chancellor said some words, with which we are all in agreement, no doubt about the House of Commons being the final arbiter in all matters of taxation. That is quite proper and we all subscribe to that doctrine, but it is inevitable under modern conditions that a great deal of our taxation should be of a discriminatory character. That is so, of course, in the range not only of Purchase Tax but of Income Tax. The point which I wish to impress upon the Chancellor in this matter of Purchase Tax where remissions or reductions are demanded is that we are all accustomed, as Members of this House, either to withstanding or yielding to pressure groups of various classes of the population. We get pressure from the old age pensioners, for example. We get pressure from the spinsters or from the married women in regard to some particular amendment of the Income Tax law. But in this matter of Purchase Tax we get pressure not from groups in the population, but from individual manufacturers of articles and individual purveyors of particular commodities. That is quite a different kind of pressure and it is a much more undesirable form of pressure for Members of this House to be subjected to. What we are afraid of, as further remissions and reductions in Purchase Tax fall to be made over enormously wide range of articles, is that there will be continuous pressure by manufacturers of individual goods upon Members of this House, and that whether or not a remission or alteration of Purchase Tax is made in regard to a particular class of goods, will come to depend upon how many Members of Parliament a particular manufacturer can get to support his case and to what extent those Members badger the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the fear in regard to Purchase Tax and that is why we would like to suggest to the Chancellor that he might give further consideration——

Mr. Dalton: I will.

Mr. Peake: We suggest that he might give further consideration to the idea of having some independent body which might sit possibly in private and which might sift these applications for remission of Purchase Tax before they come before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end, to insert:
Medal ribbon and miniature medals.
Miniature medals, which my Amendment seeks to exempt from Purchase Tax, at present are taxed at varying rates according to the metal of which they are made. The sum involved, though it cannot be very serious from the point of view of the Treasury, casts a substantial burden upon the individual purchaser. I asked Messrs. Spink and Sons, who are the King's medallists, to give me the figures, and they told me that the Purchase Tax on a miniature Victoria Cross is 8s. 8d., on a miniature of the D.S.O. £2 1s. 3d., on the miniature of the Military Cross 10s. 4d., and on the miniature of any of the campaign stars of the recent war 6s. 2d. That is described by an evening newspaper as "a tax on heroes," an expression which, though it fits a newspaper column heading very well, is, perhaps, rather an over-simplification. I suppose that a majority of hon. Members of this House are entitled to wear one or more miniatures, but we do not all claim to be heroes. Still, the expression does put the argument for the Amendment in a nutshell.
The other day, I had the pleasure of going to an evening party given by the London County Council, and saw on the invitation the words, so familiar before the war, "Evening dress and decorations." The chairman of the L.C.C. was good enough to attach to the invitation card an explanatory note, in which he said that he felt that it would be the general desire that the normal practice should now be restored as far as possible. That is a precept which I applaud, especially as it comes from a Labour administration, but it does involve multi-medalled ex-Service men in quite considerable expense, as I have shown. I hope the House will exempt future purchases of miniatures from Purchase Tax. I will only add one word about medal ribbons, and that is that they involve only

a very trifling payment of Purchase Tax, but it would be a pleasant gesture to those who have served their country in the field, if they were exempted from paying tax on the emblems of that service.

Brigadier Peto: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have just one point to make. The Amendment refers to medal ribbons and miniature medals. I. would like to make it quite clear that this includes all miniature medals and all medal ribbons which are approved by the King to be worn by the recipient, whether they be British or foreign medals. I feel sure that, on all sides of the House, a concession in the terms of this Amendment will be wholeheartedly supported, and, if I may say so, without giving offence, last, but not least, by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock).

Mr. Dalton: I have looked at this Amendment with every desire to be helpful, but these words will not quite do. I have had a discussion with the hon. Members who put down this Amendment, and I think we can find words that will do what they want, and I am prepared to do that. I think that what we want is something like this, though I am not committing myself:
Miniature reproductions of orders and decorations awarded by His Majesty, and ribbons attached thereto.
I think we should need some such words as those, taking note of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment, and who thought that the words should cover foreign decorations authorised by the King to be worn. I think we can find words for that. It would be a slight extension of the formula I have read out, but it would be my wish to include it. I think that, as the words now stand, they are rather loose and inexact. What I propose to do would be to go into the matter, and have a word with the authorised makers of these decorations, so as to be sure that we get a form of words which, in their experience, would cover the point. It would be possible to make, in a few weeks' time, if the House will permit that procedure, a Treasury Order making this exemption. We are now at a late stage of the Bill, and I cannot insert these words into the terms of the


Finance Bill, but I do undertake to look into the matter and try to find words to meet the case which has been put, and, thereafter, to have the Treasury Order made, which, of course, can be discussed in the House, and which will give effect to this exemption.

Mr. Keeling: I hope it will be possible to do that before we adjourn. I think it is desirable, now that people are being demobilised on a very large scale and may want to equip themselves with these miniatures, that they should not have to wait until October. I ask the Chancellor if he will not put in a manuscript Amendment in the terms which he has read out.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I will not. The hon. Member had better take my offer rather than haggle about it. I want to go into it speedily, and, very likely, we can get it done before we adjourn. I will get it done properly. I thought I was meeting the hon. Gentleman. I am prepared to do what I said, but I am not prepared to do anything else.

Captain Crookshank: In the Chancellor's remarks just now, he used the words "ribbons attached thereto", but I understood that it covered all ribbons. There is a medal ribbon worn, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, by a number of ex-Servicemen which is not attached to a miniature at all. His form of words seems to link up the ribbons with the miniatures —two different issues.

Mr. Dalton: They are not always worn in attachment one to the other, but any Service ribbon connected with any campaign, the Africa Star and so forth, I certainly propose to cover, with the medals of the earlier campaign in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and I took part, before we became too old.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the ribbon "attached thereto," that is, to the miniatures, but this is a wider case than that.

Mr. Dalton: Does that not prove that my offer is a good one? My offer is to go into the matter carefully to find the better form of words than that on the Order Paper. My intention is to find a form of words that will give effect to it.

Mr. Keeling: Mr. Keelingrose——

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. Member goes on much longer, I. will withdraw it.

Mr. Keeling: On the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, that he is entirely in sympathy with us and will introduce an Order, and endeavour to do it before we adjourn, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Wavell Wakefield.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: On a point of Order. The next two Amendments, on taxicabs and dustbins, are in my name. Upon which Amendment have I been called to speak?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment on taxicabs has not been selected by Mr. Speaker.

Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end, to insert "Dustbins."
I would like to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the major purpose of moving this Amendment is not to facilitate the consigning of the Socialist Government to these receptacles however desirable some of us may think that to be. It is to ask that favourable consideration should be given to the inclusion of dustbins in this Schedule. The reason is that dustbins are a necessity for health—[Interruption.]—and, as the hon. Member opposite reminds me, for the reception of the literature of Socialist candidates in general elections, and for cleanliness and general prevention of disease. The main reason why I am moving this Amendment is because, in certain parts of the country, it is compulsory, under local authority regulations, for householders to have dustbins. On that account, I am suggesting that the Chancellor might favourably consider including dustbins in the Third Schedule. Generally speaking, the majority of articles subject to Purchase Tax are of a luxury or semi-luxury nature. But where people are compelled by law to have dustbins in the interest of the general health, well-being and public advantage of the community, I suggest it is desirable that they should not be subject to tax. I do not wish to detain the House by deducing any further arguments. The point is clear, and I hope that, for the reasons I have given, the Chancellor will favourably consider this Amendment.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I beg to second the Amendment.
Bearing in mind the warning we had a moment ago that, if we went on haggling, the Chancellor would withdraw his promise and "sock" the ex-Servicemen in the chest where they will be wearing their ribbons, I hesitate to address the House at all on this question of dustbins. However, I feel that they are such an absolute necessity that the extra cost which might prevent people from buying them is a very serious thing. Hon. Members of this House are especially attached to their dustbins because of the literature which flows in upon them in such volume. If many of us felt that we could not afford a dustbin, the conglomeration which would surround us might make it impossible for us to fight our way out of the house.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Although this Amendment has been moved and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), respectively, I should not like the House to think it is purely a London matter. Indeed, I am hopeful that if the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he, also, may rally to our support on this important matter.
I do not know what the cost of this concession would be. I imagine that it might be considerable, but I do not know. However, whether that be so or not, I submit to the Chancellor that this is an Amendment worthy of consideration, if only on the ground that it is now a considerable time since most housewives had the opportunity of purchasing new dustbins. The old dustbins have gone through a period of considerable wear and tear. In fact, I have come down armed with instructions from home, rather than from my constituents, to support this Amendment. This matter does, of course, affect housewives generally, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that the cost is so great that it would out-balance the new and flexible concessions he has already made, I hope that, at least, dustbins, may be left at the head of the queue when further consideration is given to the abolition of Purchase Tax on other articles. Of course, it may be possible to abolish the tax on dustbins now; I do not know. One is prepared to listen to what the Chancellor is going

to say. The dustbin is an article of greater domestic importance than some others which have been included in previous Amendments to the Third Schedule. It has a very high priority among household utensils, and I hope that the answer we are going to get from the Chancellor will not be unsympathetic.

Mr. Gallacher: I can speak as one with some experience of dustbins. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) has had the same experience, but at home, when the "Big Chief" gives an order, it has to be obeyed. I sometimes wish that dustbins had been abolished altogether. But that is not what I rose to say. I want to appeal to the Chancellor to accept this Amendment because, if he has been watching events, he must realise that, since the Tories started their campaign, there will now be a greater need than ever for dustbins.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: There are many moving arguments in favour of this Amendment, to which I am reluctant not to respond. I have been invited to give a statistical appraisal. If I were to exempt dustbins only, that would cost £50,000. But, of course, we cannot exempt dustbins only, because the line of demarcation between the dustbin and the bucket is not clearly drawn. It would be necessary to go rather further and to exclude a number of other receptacles, including the household bucket. The cost of doing that, even drawing the line reasonably narrowly, would be round about £450,000, in a full year. I do not feel that at this stage, we can add that sum to our total commitments, particularly as the tax on this group of articles is now only 16⅔ per cent. It is charged at the lowest rate—not at zoo per cent. and not even at 33⅓ per cent., which is known as the "basic" rate. Therefore, I do not think that the burden placed upon the hon. Gentleman's friends and ours when they have to replenish their stock of dustbins is very heavy, compared with a number of other charges they have to pay. I do not know how the production of dustbins is getting on, but, assuming that they are available, the present rate of tax applying to them would not create any great hardship. However, I will gladly put this matter on the list of reasonably hopeful starters for next


year. There is evidently a case for it, although, having regard to the cost, the lowness of the rate and the other remissions I have already agreed to, it would not be right to accede to the request this year.

Sir W. Wakefield: While thanking the Chancellor for his explanation, may I ask him, whether between now and next year, if he does find that there is——

Mr. C. Williams: Mr. C. Williamsrose——

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) is in possession at the moment.

Sir W. Wakefield: I was going to ask the Chancellor a question prior to withdrawing the Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman withdraws——

Hon. Members: Order.

Sir W. Wakefield: I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he found it difficult next year to include dustbins because of the question of buckets, he could arrive at the definition that a receptacle with a cover on tap is a dustbin.

Mr. Dalton: I will certainly look at it, but I cannot commit myself. It is a point.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the Chancellor's undertaking to look at the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 58, line 11, at the end, to insert:

" CLASS OF GOODS BECOMING CHARGEABLE AT REDUCED RATE ON 22ND JULY, 1946. Wallpaper."

This is the wallpaper reduction on which I have already spoken. I do not think I need add anything further.

Mr. C. Williams: On behalf of the whole House, I wish formally to thank the Chancellor for this concession, which will be of great value. I know that hon. Ladies opposite have been ordered not to speak, but I feel that they would particularly like me, on their behalf, to thank the Chancellor for the concession he has made on this occasion. It will

help us a great deal in the West Country. I thank the Chancellor most sincerely.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 58, line 32, at the end, to insert:

CLASSES OF GOODS BECOMING CHARGEABLE AT BASIC RATE ON 22ND JULY, 1946.

The following articles not being made partly of fur skin including any skin with fur, hair or wool attached),—
1. garments or footwear made wholly or partly of silk (except silk used for stitching of seams and buttonholes);
2. headgear, ties, scarves, handkerchiefs, muffs, collars, cuffs and gloves made wholly or partly of silk (except silk used for the stitching of seams and buttonholes).

Fabrics (whether in the piece, shaped or partly made up) made wholly or partly of silk (but not including pile fabrics or woven-figured fabrics).

Textile articles of a kind used for domestic purposes and soft furnishings, made wholly or partly of fabrics becoming chargeable at the basic rate as aforesaid."

This is a proposal to reduce the duty on goods containing natural silk from the level of 100 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. The case for this reduction was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and other hon. Members. Four or five hon. Members spoke in support of a proposal of this kind. I have given it careful consideration, and this concession, which has taken me over what I regarded at one time as the safety margin, is really one of my extravagances. Having looked carefully into the matter, I have come to the conclusion that it is difficult to justify a discrimination against natural silk as opposed to artificial silk and other textile materials. This Amendment brings natural silk into line with artificial silk on the 33⅓ per cent. level. No doubt, I shall be pressed by some hon. Members on another occasion to go even further. I will not give any hints as to what plausible extensions of this concession might be suggested, but there are one or two. I have looked at the cost which we would incur, and this particular concession will run me into something in the neighbourhood of very nearly £1 million in a full year. It is, therefore, relatively expensive. On the other hand, it is an important industry and it has many skills which we wish to retain. It has considerable export possibilities. We have, of course, to import the material, But we should be able to export goods with


very greatly increased value. The work of British labour on the import produces an export of considerable value, and it is very important to keep the centres of this industry in a state of good employment. Weighing up all the considerations, I think I was justified, though only just justified in view of the general financial situation, in making this proposal. I hope it will meet with the general approval of all parts of the House.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I rise to thank the Chancellor most sincerely for the very generous way in which he has considered this proposal. It will be greatly appreciated by my Division and by the silk industry in other parts of the country. As I explained during the Debate in the early hours of the morning, the industry has done a great job in the war, and I am sure the Chancellor will have no regrets about making this decision because the silk industry will play a great part in our economy. I would also like to thank the Financial Secretary for the very courteous way in which he received the deputation from the silk industry with representatives of trades unions and employers. They presented a good case, and this shows what can be done when the industry works together as one body. I thank the Chancellor once again for his consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 59, line 3, at the end, insert:
In the entry relating to projectors for substandard films or for slides the words ' or for slides,' shall be deleted.

In page 59, In line 5, at the end, insert:
In the entry relating to paper manufactures the word ' wallpaper ' shall be deleted.

In page 59, In line 19, at the end, insert:
''Opposite the entry relating to paper manufactures there shall be inserted the following entry:
Wallpaper.'

In page 59, In line 20, at the end, insert:
Opposite the entry relating to headgear and immediately after the entry relating to protective helmets there shall be inserted the following entry:
'Wigs.'

In page 59, In line 38, at the end, insert:
Opposite the entry relating to lamp chimneys and other illuminating glassware and immediately before the entry relating to domestic cooking and heating appliances there shall be inserted the following entry:

'Glass chimneys and similar primary glasses being chimneys and glasses designed for oil or candle lamps.'

In page 59, In line 46, at the end, insert: "Fireguards."

In page 6o, line 5, at the end insert:
Smoothing irons and pressing irons, being irons of a kind used for domestic purposes."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page too, line 11, at the end, to insert:
Acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps.
Opposite the entry relating to electric dry batteries and immediately before the entry relating to batteries designed' for deaf aid appliances there shall be inserted the following entry:
'Electric dry batteries of not more than 6 volts.'
Opposite the entry relating to cutlery suitable for domestic or personal use and immediately before the entry relating to appliances specially designed for persons not having the full use of their arms there shall be inserted the following entry:
'Clasp knives (but not including razors or goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares).'

Mr. C. Williams: I am not sure that this Amendment is as fully consequential as some of the others. It will be noticed that it goes rather further. If the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary would tell me to which Amendment this is consequential I should be obliged, because it is a matter on which I am in doubt. I think there may be a new element in it. If the Chancellor says that it is entirely consequential, of course, I will accept his assurance.

Mr. Dalton: The wording is identical. The words are "acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps." They are consequential on the earlier Amendment.

Mr. Williams: Where?

Mr. Dalton: In the Amendment to Schedule 3, page 58, line 5, which proposed to insert a whole list of articles including these referred to in this Amendment. It was on that earlier Amendment that the general discussion took place. The hon. Member will see the fifth group of items, which is "Acetylene cap lamps and acetylene hand lamps." This is a consequential Amendment using precisely the same words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 6o, line 13, leave out "entry," and insert "entries."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 60, line 16, at the end, to insert "vermin traps."

Mr. C. Williams: I think it will be remembered that earlier I accepted with very deep gratitude the insertion of these words. I then put a conundrum to the right hon. Gentleman about slug traps, and he was not then able to answer it. I have been waiting for this Amendment because I thought that the Chancellor would be able to answer the question when he came to it. The concession for which I asked would not cost him much money and, in all probability, would more than pay for itself from the point of view of food production.

Mr. Dalton: I shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman for further and better particulars, because those who advise me on these matters are not aware of the nature of a slug trap. Perhaps that is because they are not acquainted with the rural lore in which the hon. Gentleman is an expert. If there be such a convenient contrivance for catching slugs, my guess is that it would be caught by this remission. That would be my practical man's guess. If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars with a little drawing and a plan it will, no doubt, be very useful, and I will have the matter looked into. I am definitely sympathetic, and my guess is that it is all right.

Mr. Williams: May I be permitted to ask a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can speak only once, except by permission of the House.

Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I was asking for.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has been refused permission to speak again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 60, line 19, leave out "Epidiascopes," and insert:
Projectors for slides (including projectors for film-strips but not including cinematograph projectors).
Lenses and other parts of, and accessories to, projectors exempted as aforesaid."—[Mr. Dalton.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 6o, line 29, at the end, to insert:
Opposite the entry relating to appliances, apparatus, accessories and requisites for sports, games, gymnastics or athletics there shall be inserted the following entry:
Vessels primarily designed for propulsion otherwise than by the occupants themselves, and parts of, and accessories to, such vessels.

Sir G. Fox: With regard to appliances for athletics, could the Chancellor find some way of including apparatus for racing eights under that term? If he could find some way to include that, it would meet the needs of the rowing community.

Mr. Dalton: As it stands, it is quite clear that racing eights are not included in the concession. This is including in tae broad category of
appliances, apparatus, accessories and requisites for sports, games …
a particular class of sailing vessels defined in this Amendment. At this stage I cannot do more. However, I would very much like—and I put this very near the top of the list myself, without prompting —to clear the whole of this group of appliances used in connection with athletics of all forms. I should very much like to do it in a way which would include racing eights with all the other things.

Mr. C. Williams: Under this Amendment the Chancellor may, by mistake, be doing what my hon. and gallant Friend has just asked him to do. I hope he is. I hope he will not look at it too closely. If at a later stage he finds these requisites in regard to sports include racing eights, I hope he will be lenient to it. We shall all remember the kindliness with which he has just spoken on the subject. I congratulate him on the further advance, in that he is taking this particular subject to a higher level of priority than it had earlier in the day. I think the right hon. Gentleman is on the upgrade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 60, line 36, at the end, insert:
'Opposite the entry relating to pictures, prints, engravings, photographs and other articles there shall be inserted the following entry:—
'Cinematograph films, film-strips and lantern sides, being films, film-strips and slides containing pictures for exhibition by means of a projector.'

In line 39, at the end, insert:
In the entry relating to garments or footwear the words ' or silk (except silk used for the stitching of seams and buttonholes) ' shall be deleted.
In the entry relating to headgear, ties, scarves, handkerchiefs, muffs, collars, cuffs and gloves the words ' or silk (except silk used for the stitching of seams and buttonhoes) ' shall be deleted.

In line 43, at the end, insert:
In the entry relating to fabrics the words 'Fabrics made wholly or partly of silk' shall be deleted."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Purchase Tax. Chargeable processes: relevant classes of goods.)

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 61, line 25, at the end, to insert:
which is imported or of silver fox or mink or more than three pounds in weight.
I will read the whole sentence in paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule, otherwise it will not be very clear:
Chargeable Processes: Relevant Classes of Goods. 1. Apparel and rugs made wholly or partly of fur skin other than of rabbit (including any skin with fur, hair or wool attached) which is imported or of silver fox or mink or more than three pounds in weight.
Hon. Members will probably recall the battle which we had at an earlier stage, to try to exempt from Purchase Tax the garments and uses to which the skin of the domestic rabbit was turned after it had been killed.

Mr. Tartan: Or of the wild rabbit.

Lieut. Commander Joynson-Hicks: During that Debate the Chancellor met us most sympathetically, as a result of which he promised to exclude rabbit skins, or the chargeable process which was adopted in making them up into gloves, and so forth, from Purchase Tax. A question also arose—and I recall that I referred to it myself when speaking in the Debate—whether or not it might be easier, and more all-embracing, without departing from the principle which the Chancellor was following, to exclude from Purchase Tax chargeable processes in regard to all skins other than those imported. The matter was not pursued at the time, and it occurred to me afterwards, when considering it, that if we went as wide as that we should, of course, cover all cow skins, calf skins, horse hide and other animals, whether

agricultural, domestic or even zoological, which might be embraced by such a definition, and which might very largely affect the trade. That was not our intention at all. The intention was simply to exclude from the effect of the Purchase Tax the, chargeable processes on something which is either a domestic pet or a side issue to something which is very largely used in connection with food production
We devised this form of words, which I believe would meet the case. They meet the case of the mole catcher, who is assisting agricultural production by keeping down the moles, but who is substantially remunerated for so doing by the price which he can get for his mole skins when they are made up into coats, gaiters and so on. If Purchase Tax is applied to that, once the chargeable process has been incurred it is out of all proportion to the production which is created. Another item which should be excluded, so as to escape the effect of Purchase Tax, is lambskin, and I should like to ask what is the intention of the Financial Secretary in that direction, because again it is a very useful item on the asset side of the balance sheet when the expenditure side shows to a farmer the loss of a lamb which has died prematurely. Lambskins have a substantial value, which is very useful to the small farmer; if a lamb dies prematurely it is a dead loss, but its skin, if it has a chargeable process carried out upon it, becomes an asset of some value. I think it would be quite outside the intention of the Chancellor to prevent this small but useful asset to the community being put upon the market as a result of the application of the Purchase Tax on the value of the chargeable process which has been done upon the skin. There are other small animals such as badgers, otters and moles, of which the profitable killing would be an advantage to agriculture and would to that extent assist food production. The matter is a small one, but it continues a principle which the Chancellor accepted in excepting rabbit skins from the effect of Purchase Tax upon the chargeable process. I believe that this Amendment is logical, that it would be very popular, and I hope the Chancellor will be able to accept it.

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment fully realised how valuable it was, and I will endeavour to show him how, though the exemption for instance of moleskins may seem a very little thing in a small place, it may add up to something of bigger value over the whole of the country. I thought the hon. and gallant Member would have wished to emphasise that point, otherwise the Financial Secretary might not realise how important this is. The hon. Member mentioned the occasional lamb that might die, and I have no doubt that happens in Cumberland and in Scotland, where I am told there is never any shortage of mutton—but that is neither here nor there. There is, however, another form of skin which I will mention as an additional argument to the Chancellor, and that is the skin of the deer which are killed in considerable numbers in Scotland every year. I have no doubt that other hon. Gentlemen with greater ingenuity than I could ever hope to possess will be able to mention other forms as well. Perhaps there are hon. Members on this side of the House who might even wish to include fox skins, but that is a line which I need not follow, because I might get myself into trouble with hon. Gentlemen on the other side who take a very serious view of this matter.

6.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I sincerely hope the hon. Gentleman will not omit the very valuable sealskins.

Mr. C. Williams: This has been sprung on me rather suddenly, and I have not had time to consult the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, but if it would add to the burden of argument against the Financial Secretary, and if my hon. Friend at a later date would be able to prove that both in regard to weight and value they would come under this Amendment, then so far as I am concerned I certainly would not object to that. When I make a speech on an Amendment of this kind, I naturally mention only those forms of skin to which I have given adequate and mature consideration, and I do not think I could fairly expect the Financial Secretary to accept sealskins. [Laughter.] I mean the Amendment. I am not making him any present, he has been too brutal altogether for that kind of thing.

I feel sure this Amendment is in keeping with the whole tone of the Chancellor's remarks today and for that reason I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, while I regret that I have not been able to assemble more arguments in its favour. It is a constructive Amendment so far as many industries in the country are concerned, and it is important because it helps people who are really deserving.
I see that an hon. Friend of mine looks as if he might argue with me as to whether certain forms of skin, such as badger skin which have been mentioned, would, strictly speaking, come into this Amendment, and he might wish to dissociate himself from me on this matter. I hope he will not, because I shall have no chance to make a second speech. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be very sad about that. But always before I make a speech on an Amendment of this kind, I ask myself very strictly if it is really necessary. This time I think it is absolutely and exclusively necessary, and the only thing now, after you have put the Question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is for the hon. Gentleman to get up and say he will give us the Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) would, I think, be the most surprised Member of the House today if I announced, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that I was going to accept this Amendment. When we dealt with Clause 15 my right hon. Friend did meet the wishes which were then expressed in every quarter of the House, that something should be done about rabbit skins; and he met those who desired their deletion from the scope of Clause 15 and this Fourth Schedule, I thought, very handsomely. Now, not content with that —I am not complaining, but only stating the fact—certain hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of the House, are trying, on Report stage, to insert this together with other Amendments which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have not thought fit to call. The effect of the Amendment, as moved, would be to limit the liability to Purchase Tax, under Clause 15 of the Bill, to imported fur skins, British silver fox and mink skins, and British fur skins weighing more than three pounds. It may be that lamb skin— these skins were referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Com


mander Joynson-Hicks)—may be either below or above the three lb. weight, inserted in this Amendment as the limit. But so far as my information goes, it is possible to have them of varying weights, and it is by no means certain they will all be below that weight, which was, I think, the illustration which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave.
We cannot possibly extend this concession any further. To do so would mean including, as has been said moles, squirrels, wild cats, the fox, the ordinary domestic cat, and even dogs in so far as their skins weighed no more than 3 lb.—and other small animals of various kinds. We cannot, quite frankly, see how the Amendment, if it were embodied in the Bill, could be worked. For example, how is one to judge the weight? Is it to be the weight before a skin is dressed, or after it has been dressed and sent to the maker-up? Many of these skins have to be soaked in brine, and kept for a period. Is the weight to be judged before the skin is soaked or afterwards? These and other queries arise, and they would have to be settled before this Amendment could be worked equitably and properly.

Mr. C. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me a moment? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so courteously. He did ask how one could judge the weight. It is perfectly simple -to answer, for this purpose that the Customs and Excise officials would be able to deal with that quite easily. So that argument goes by the board.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It may well be that the hon. Gentleman has more knowledge of these matters than I have, but it is difficult to believe that Customs and Excise officials can easily levy duty on skins according to whether they are above or below a given weight. So far as I know, skins are dealt with as skins and though it is true that when they are sold weight may enter into consideration; here, if I understand the Amendment aright, the whole question will turn on whether, at some time which is not stated, a skin is above or below three pounds in weight. There would, too, if this Amendment is accepted, be the additional difficulty of deciding whether the skin has or has not been imported. In the course of dressing

and other processes which go to the making up of a skin before it reaches the stage of a finished article, there comes a time when it often loses its identity, when it is quite impossible to say whether it has been imported or came from an animal bred in this country. For these reasons, if for no others, it is quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment, and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Turton: The Financial Secretary has given tonight a most unfortunate reply to the speeches made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He has completely overlooked the fact that, on the previous stage, when we moved the Amendment about rabbits, we widened our discussion and talked about the local taxidermist, and the fox, the mole and the badger, as we have today. His right hon. Friend, I must say, was much more helpful and more knowledgeable than the Financial Secretary has been. He said he would accept it at first sight, immediately. When he learned how wide the question was, he said he would go into it in further detail, as it concerned other animals, to see how the matter could be dealt with. I should think that the Financial Secretary has not been called into those domestic consultations with the Chancellor, because he gave us no sign that he has argued this matter and thought it out in the interval; which shows how really dangerous it is to accept any assurance from the Treasury that a matter is to be considered carefully in the interval between Committee and Report.
The House always treats with levity any discussion of animals' skins. I do not quite know why. It has not, I think, been brought out, that this is going to affect a good many small tradesmen and people in rural areas, it they are to have to pay at 100 per cent. on their business, although their turnover is small; and who, were they fortunate enough to have a business not concerned with skins, would not have to pay any Purchase Tax at all, because they are under the £500 limit. Bearing that in mind, why is it that these rural craftsmen should be penalised, when the people in the towns engaged in small businesses are not being penalised by the Government? This is


another example of how the Socialist Government and the Socialist Chancellor are weighting taxation against the rural areas in favour of the towns.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will recall the arguments we used on this question at an earlier stage. The weight specified in the Amendment is too low. It should be 5 lbs. and not 3 lbs.; because what we want to exempt is the large animal. Somebody has suggested the seal and the cow hide. Quite clearly, if they were to be used, they would come within the purview which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to include. But, really, it is not treating the House seriously to get up, as the Financial Secretary did, and say, "How are we to judge the weight, and at what stage?" Clearly, the answer is at the stage stated in Clause 15—the stage of the "resulting goods." Accordingly a man, in order to get exemption, would have to show that the resulting goods were under 3 lbs. in weight—as the Amendment says, although I should prefer 5 lbs. There is no real difficulty about that, because the onus would be on the small tradesman to prove that he is exempted. That is one of the good fortunes of the Treasury officials. They always make the taxable subject prove that he should not be taxable.
I see the Solicitor-General there. I think he would agree with me. I hope that he will apply his mind to the problem of whether this weight definition would not be practicable for the Customs and Excise. For these reasons I hope the Government will give further consideration to this matter. This is the first time they have carried out their assurance to consider this matter in the intervening stage. We have had a deplorable exhibition from the Government Front Bench.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Quite 99 per cent. of Britishers are decent, honest people, and we in this House suffer from having to make regulations for the odd one per cent. who do something which is definitely naughty. As I understand the situation, people have been going to this one per cent. of tradesmen selling furs, and have been told: "Do not pay 100 per cent. Purchase Tax. Let me buy the necessary number of skins. You can pay me then for making them up into a fur coat, and in that way you will

not have to pay 100 per cent. Purchase Tax." That is the fundamental basis for Clause 15 and for all we have been discussing here. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) was saying that the arguments which apply in the case of rabbits are as applicable to moles and other indigenous animals, and the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was making is equally sound.
It seems to me that hitherto Customs and Excise have been labouring under the disadvantage that the onus is upon them to prove that a fur coat had been genuinely made by the furrier, and was not, as alleged, a garment made up from skins the property of the customer. With this processing Clause in the Bill, and with the exception of mole skins as well as rabbit skins, the onus will be entirely the other way round. It will be for the retailer who sells a coat free of Purchase Tax to prove something which will have to be convincingly proved, that in point of fact the farmer in question brought him so many mole skins and they were made up into a fur coat. It seems to me clear that the Financial Secretary has not been giving the attention to this matter which the House is entitled to expect from him, because this is absolutely consistent with the whole principle which underlies the concession which the Chancellor has given, and it seems to be workable. He has said the opposite for both these things, and I do not think that anyone in the House thinks he is right in his contentions

Mr. McKie: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. I. J. Pitman) and Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I am very disappointed with the reply made by the Financial Secretary. It seems to me that the Financial Secretary merely sought to shelter himself behind the impossibility of accepting the Amendment because of the last words—the words "more than three pounds in weight," My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut. - Commander Joynson-Hicks), who drafted this Amendment, does not, of course, profess to be a professional, but the mere wording of the Amendment need not have led the Financial Secretary of necessity to reject it. It was open to him to come down to the House, if he had studied the Order


Paper, and move a manuscript Amendment which would give effect to the idea which we have very much at heart, that there should be some general exemptions of skins from Purchase Tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) spoke about the traffic in deer skins in the North of Scotland. This is a very great source of livelihood to many people in the North of Scotland, and their livelihood is in serious danger of being jeopardised.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Deer skins are not included in this Amendment.

Mr. McKie: The Financial Secretary did not tell that to my hon. Friend when he was speaking. There is one skin which is covered by this Amendment, and that is the mole skin. Earlier today the Chancellor was pressed, on an Amendment, to take vermin traps out of Purchase Tax, to make it clear that vermin traps would include traps for catching moles. It was pointed out to the Chancellor that if mole-catching was not to be encouraged, the agricultural industry, which hon. Members opposite are continually telling us they want to see in a flourishing condition, will suffer. I hope that I have made clear the double reason why I wish to see mole skins excluded from Purchase Tax. Firstly, I want to protect the livelihood of those engaged in catching moles and marketing what to them are valuable skins for various purposes, and, secondly, to ensure that there shall be efficient mole-catching throughout Great Britain. I very much hope that even now the Financial Secretary, on reflection, will see his way to move some form of manuscript Amendment which will give effect to our wishes. I wish to impress how important it is that mole skins should be excluded from the orbit of Purchase Tax, not only to protect the livelihood of those engaged in catching moles, but in order that there shall be efficient catching of moles to protect agriculture. [Interruption.] I could say a lot more about badgers and other animals, including the wild cat, and still be in Order. I hope that the Financial Secretary even now will see his way to move a manuscript Amendment which will give effect to the wishes of Members on this side, and which, I think, would have some support even from Members opposite.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The prolongation of this Debate, as so often happens in the House, is due to the extremely peremptory nature of the reply which the Financial Secretary has just made. He began by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) would be surprised if the concession were made. That is an extraordinary thing. We have had some three hours of perfectly amicable discussion, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a yielding and forthcoming frame of mind, and an atmosphere of conciliation and friendliness, and then along comes the Financial Secretary, and in his first interjection today he introduces a jarring note.
I hope that the matter is not to be left where it is, because the speeches made since the Financial Secretary resumed his seat, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—who speaks with such eloquence about rural areas so often forgotten by the Government—have adduced reasons why we should have another statement from the Treasury bench, or some reconsideration of the matter. With all respect to the Financial Secretary, he made one or two statements which were a little curious, such as that a lamb skin would be either above or below the weight of 3 lb. I do not know whether that is on his brief, but it seems to me to reveal the firm grasp of the obvious which the hon. Member has. Has it occurred to him that a lamb skin may be neither above nor below 3 lb. but may be the exact weight? Is that the Treasury brief? Or has this remark sprung solely from the brain of the Financial Secretary?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The point was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks). I understood that he wanted to include lamb skins, and I pointed out to him that one could not be sure that a lamb skin would always be below 3 lbs, in weight.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: The three pound limit could be fixed for the skin of a still-born lamb.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I was not dealing with lambs, still-born or otherwise. I was dealing with the remarkable statement made by the Financial Secretary. If he will look in HANSARD tomorrow he will see that he said that "All lamb


skins would be above or below the weight of 3 lbs." He was very proud of that remark. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Whips' Office will soon be relieved from duty, and will be able to go to some more congenial part of the House. In the meantime, perhaps he will listen with courtesy. If one thing has arisen from this discussion, it is that the Financial Secretary is very ill-informed on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Do not get so indignant.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I hope that if the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is better informed than we are on this subject, he will see fit to intervene in the Debate. I see opposite, the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. He has a gift of lucid exposition, which we all envy, and perhaps, at the end of this long Debate, when a number of intricate points have been raised, which have been dealt with by his colleagues in such a way as to make confusion worse confounded, he will come to our aid to clear up some of those points, in that agreeable manner which we all enjoy. He is the one who can now come to the rescue. I am hopeful that, with his legal knowledge, he will be able to clear up some of the complexities into which the Financial Secretary has tumbled, and tell us if there are other considerations which may have weight in this discussion. He has listened to this Debate with the closest attention; his mind is clear, and he may be able to assist us.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to add my support to what has been said on this question of mole skins. There is no doubt that in rural areas, such as mine, it is very important. It is important, as the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has emphasised, not only from the point of view of the fur skin trade, but from the point of view of agriculture. The Government have given way on the subject of rabbits, and I think that they might meet us on this question as well.

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. There does not appear to be anything in this Amendment about mole skins.

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment refers to "three pounds in weight," and the question appears to be whether that can relate to mole skins.

6.45 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I think that a mole skin is, normally, under 3 lbs. in weight, and, therefore, I think that I am in Order in mentioning it. If the Government will give way on this question of mole skins, which affects agriculture and also the fur trade, they will be conferring a very great benefit. It was largely due to the efforts of the Opposition that they gave way on the question of rabbit skins. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be a little more forthcoming on this question of mole skins, which is a very small matter to him but is of considerable concern to the fur trade and to agriculture.

Sir G. Fox: Will the Financial Secretary also consider the question of the skins of musk rats and Myopotomous coypu. These two small animals are increasing in great numbers in my constituency, and I believe that their furs or skins are of great value.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: A great deal of the work of mole catching and the curing of the skins is carried on by men who have reached later years in life, and are not sufficiently fit to engage in heavy agricultural work. I hope that the Financial Secretary will bear that in mind in considering this matter. There are not a great many forms of employment in the countryside open to those of older years, and this is one of the few ancillary trades—one might almost call it a craft —which is still open to them. The hon. Gentleman will, I fear, do a great deal of harm if he pursues the line which he is taking.

Mr. Howard: I cannot help thinking that the Financial Secretary has unintentionally over-complicated this matter by concentrating our attention upon the words on the Order Paper and omitting to remind us of the words in the Schedule to which this Amendment applies. The words in the Schedule refer to "apparel and rugs." The House has been led into considering the complicated question of chargeable processes, and at which particular point of that chargeable process the skin of a particular animal might not weigh more or less than three pounds. Surely, there is no difficulty in recognising when a skin has become an article of apparel or a rug.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Computation Of losses on Sales of Stock.)

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 66, line 8, to leave out "in labour and materials."
This Amendment is designed to assist industrialists during the reconstruction period by making a slight adjustment in the provisions of Clause 34 and this Schedule. The House will remember that Clause 34 is the one which enables industrialists to claim by way of deduction against their Excess Profits Tax for the year in question, losses which they incur on the sale of stock during what is called the "sales period." The loss is that which they incur on stock which they hold on 3rst December, 1946, and the sales period is 1947 and 1948. If the amount which they receive when disposing of that stock, is less than the value or cost to them of that stock, they are entitled to claim against their Excess Profits Tax Return the amount of that loss. The Seventh Schedule contains machinery for assessing the amount of the loss. A person has to ask himself the value of the stock held at 31st December, 1946, and has then to ascertain how much is realised for it during the sales period. The balance can be set off for Excess Profits Tax purposese.
One of the provisions of the Schedule deals with the case in which the stock, which is held on 31st December, 1946, has work done upon it, and, therefore, has its value increased before it is disposed of in the sales period. If one is trying to get a true picture of the loss to the industrialist, one must reduce the amount received on disposing of the stock proportionately, by making a deduction representing the increased value, which has been embodied in the stock by work done upon it. The Schedule, as it stands, says that a deduction must be made by estimating the increased value in terms of the labour and material expended upon that stock, but sound accountancy principles lay down that to discover the real measure of the increased value there should be taken into account, not merely the labour and materials expended upon the stock, but also a fair figure to represent the overhead charges. The Amendment by leaving out the words
in labour and materials.
makes the words general, and in their general form they would include not merely expenditure incurred in labour

and materials, but also expenditure which represents a proportion of overhead expenses. I ask the House to say that this is a fair concession in favour of the industrialist, and that it is the only way in which to get at the true estimate of the loss which he sustained.

Mr. C. Williams: I wish to thank the Solicitor-General for the concession which he has made. To those of us who have been following this concession throughout these very complicated proceedings it might appear that these words ought not to have been put in the Bill, but the intention of the Government in this Schedule is to see that the costs imposed by labour, materials and overhead charges are, purely from the accountancy point of view, divided between the two periods which the Solicitor-General has mentioned. It is a sound business proposition and a thing which most of us appreciate, because it is helpful not only to business, but also to the workers engaged in industry. For that reason I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making this concession, which is fair and valuable. During the Debates on the Finance Bill, I have said many things in criticism of the right hon. Gentleman from time to time, as well as remarks to the contrary. I am glad that towards the end of proceedings on this Bill I am able to thank him for a concession which I believe will be of value to employers and employees and to the trade in general.

Amendment agreed to

Orders of the Day — TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments as to gifts inter vivos, etc.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 70, line 7, to leave out from "years," to the end of the paragraph.
This and the succeeding Amendment to the Schedule are consequential to an Amendment which was made in Clause 42 of the Bill. Clause 42 in its unamended form increased the period which must elapse before death, in the case of gifts to prevent them being assessable to Death Duty, to five years for non-charitable purposes and two years for charitable purposes. After some debate, the Government accepted an Amendment providing that in the case of charitable gifts the period should remain one year. The Amendments which appear on the Order Paper to the Tenth Schedule are cones-


quential upon that Amendment to Clause 42.

Mr. C. Williams: I only say that I realise that this is purely consequential and it is not a matter which I have any intention of discussing. I should, however, emphasise once again the fact that I and a great many other people believe that these proposals will be harmful to the country as a whole.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 70, line 18, leave out from "years," to the end of the paragraph.

In page 71, line 2, leave out from the first "words," to the end of the paragraph, and insert:
'three years' in both Maces where those words occur there shall be substituted the words 'five years."'
In page 71, line 38, leave out paragraph 2. —[The Solicitor-General.]
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

6.59 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the United States of America of the Convention set out in Part I and the Protocol set out in Part II of the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S. A.) Order, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 4th July, an Order may be made in the form of that draft in lieu of an Order in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th January
As the House is aware, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, provides that Double Taxation Agreements may be made with other countries. Statutory effect is given to any Agreements that are so made by Order in Council. It is an Address for such an Order in Council that we are now asking the House to approve. The draft Order to which this Motion relates was presented on the 14th July last. It contains a Double Taxation Convention with the United States relating to taxes on income, which was actually signed on the 16th April, 1945, and was also, as many Members will be aware, published some time ago as a White Paper. It also includes, something which is new and that

is a Protocol, signed on the 6th June, 1946, which amends one of the Articles of the Convention to which / have just referred. An affirmative Resolution is needed before both the Convention and the Protocol can he ratified by this country. The United States is ready to ratify both these documents. The approval of the Senate has already been obtained, and we are asking the House to approve on behalf of the United Kingdom.
The present draft Order supersedes another draft Order, which was presented to the House on 28th January, 1946, and which actually received an affirmative Resolution by this House on 19th February. Although the present draft Convention is the same as was then presented, and agreed to, we are presenting it again to the House because, this time, it has attached to it, as I have indicated, the Protocol making a change in the Convention. The purpose of the Protocol is to delete Article 11 (3) from the Convention. This Article is designed to facilitate business visits between this country and the United States, and provides that where a United States resident is performing services for another United States resident in this country he should be exempt from United Kingdom tax on any earnings that might accrue to him if he is here for not more than 183 days in any one Income Tax year. The arrangement is, of course, reciprocal, and would apply equally in favour of a United Kingdom resident residing in America, and acting there for another citizen of this country. Paragraph 3 of this particular Article, however, denied the benefits of this exemption to "public entertainers, such as stage, motion picture or radio artistes, musician, and athletes." These would have been taxable, although any double tax relief to which they would have been entitled might have been claimed by them under Article 13 of the Convention. Their exclusion under Article 11 was however noted by the motion picture industry in Hollywood, which immediately made representations to the United States Government on the subject. Their spokesmen appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate and, eventually, it was agreed that representations should be made to this country for the deletion of the offending limitation.
As has already been reported to the House, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to the deletion of this paragraph of the Article. No doubt the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) may later substantiate the statement that this is a change which the British film industry is pleased to see made, and is one it thoroughly approves. The effect of the change is that an English film "star"— to use the motion picture industry as an example—if working temporarily in the United States for a United Kingdom employer, will not now pay United States tax on his earnings there. The same rule will apply to a United States "star" working here for a United States employer. I should add that the change will have no application whatever to a United States resident if he is living here, and performing services here for a United Kingdom employer——

Earl Winterton: No doubt inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman did me an injustice. It is true that I have a certain personal interest in the film industry, but I am not speaking in this Debate, and I do not want it to be thought that I am a party to these negotiations.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry it anything I said might have given to the House a contrary impression. I knew that the noble Lord was interested in the film industry, and thought he would have been aware that the British film industry did thoroughly approve of this change, and was anxious that the House should agree to it. I meant no more than that, and I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance on that point. I have no more to say, Mr. Speaker, than to commend this Motion to the House for its acceptance.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I am sure the House will be grateful to the Financial Secretary for his clear exposition of this rather technical matter. I must confess that when I saw that the draft Order which was approved by the House as long ago as last January was to be laid again, with an amendment in it of a very minor character, I was somewhat suprised, and wondered why it was that this Amendment had been thought

necessary, or desirable. The hon. Gentleman has now made the position clear. We on this side of the House welcome this double taxation agreement. It will do a very great deal to facilitate both commercial and cultural relations between the two great English speaking democracies It provides for the elimination or the reduction of double taxation over the whole commercial field, and a large part of the cultural field. The different Articles in the Convention deal with shipping profits, dividends, interests, royalties, copyrights, professional fees, and fees earned by teachers and people of that description.
The earnings which may be subject to double taxation are dealt with in a variety of ways. Some are met by means of apportionment, some by means of a set off, and some by way of total exemption. Article 11, which is being amended by the Protocol, refers to the earnings of professional and business agents on short-term visits of less than 183 days from either United States to this country or from this country to the United States. The earnings of such agents were totally exempt from taxation in the country visited by the agent. The Article contains a curious exception relating to public entertainers, such as stage, motion picture or radio artistes, musicians, and athletes. I cannot believe that that exemption, in the first instance, was of very much value, because my experience, such as it is, is that stage, motion picture and radio artistes, musicians and athletes, work not as agents for other people, but on their own account. They fall into the ranks of what we call here, "the self employed." I should think that the number of cases where they act as agents for other persons, and might be said to be performing services for or on behalf of other persons are very few and far between. I imagine that the reason why the United States came forward, after the agreement had once been signed, to ask that this paragraph should be deleted, was more a matter of amour properwith Hollywood film stars than anything else.
As far as I can see, the addition of the Protocol, which will delete this exception, will make very little difference to the agreement. It may, to a very slight extent, facilitate visits to this country by American "stars" and by British "stars" to the United States. In either case, they would have got free


dom from double taxation, but if they obtain freedom from taxation under Article 13, they will obtain that freedom in a much more simple and speedy way than they would have done had their cases been dealt with under Article 13 of the Convention. For that reason, while we are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining this matter to us, we on this side will offer no objection to the Order.

Question, put and agreed to. Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the United States of America of the Convention set out in Part I and the Protocol set out in Part II of the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S.A.) Order. 1946, a copy of which was presented on 4th July, an Order may be made in the form of that draft in lieu of an Order in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th January.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — MILK MARKETING (COUNTY OF ORKNEY) CHARGES ORDER

Resolved:
That the Milk Marketing (County of Orkney (Charges)) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 888), dated 24th June, 1946, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 26th June, he approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — BURMA (GOVERNOR'S LEAVE AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES)

7.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Governor's Leave and Travelling Allowances) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
The object of this Motion is to provide that the Governor of Burma, when he returns to this country on official duties, shall continue to receive his official salary. Under the Order that operates at the moment, and which was made in 1936, he

receives a sum which is less than half of what he receives as his official salary. It is considered that he should not suffer in those circumstances. The position was considered in connection with the Governor-General of India who, similarly, up to 1944, in the event of his returning to this country on official duty, suffered a considerable loss. The effect of this Order will be to put the Governor of Burma on the same footing as the Governor-General of India, and will ensure that when he returns to this country on official duties, he will continue to receive his official salary.

Earl Winterton: This seems to me to be a reasonable Order, and I only regret that it was not possible to pass it before. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is retroactive? The present Governor would have come under the Order if it had been passed before.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. It applies as from 1st June of this year and will cover the present case.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Mr. Henderson: May I explain to the House that this is the procedure which is adopted because this Address has to be moved in another place, and in order to avoid complications in the event of an Amendment being made in another place, it is technically convenient to move that the Debate be adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS

7.14 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the India and Burma (Burma Monetary Arrangements) (Second Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
The House will be aware that, on the separation of Burma from India in 1937, the necessary provision with regard to me currency of Burma was made in an Order passed in that year. For present purpose,


the chief point of this provision was that the Burma rupee should be linked to the Indian rupee and that Burma's currency should be managed by the Reserve Bank of India. The fact that it was recognised that it might be desirable later to alter the arrangements thus made is evidenced by the provision in paragraph 21 of Part II of the 1937 Order that its operation might be determined by two years' notice given to the Governor-General of India by the Governor of Burma or vice versa. The House will remember that last month an Order was made, the main object of which was to regularise the currency position in Burma as from the time of the Governor's return in October of last year. To do this, it provided that the Governor should be responsible for managing the currency, using the Reserve Bank of India as his agent. His responsibility was to continue until 30th September of this year. Following the promulgation of this Amendment Order, the long-term position has been considered in Burma by the Governor and his Executive Council, and a with the agreement of the Executive Council, the Governor has recommended that, as soon as possible, the currency link with India should be severed and a Currency Board established for Burma.
This Order now presented is designed to meet the wishes of the Government of Burma. In the first place, it prescribes that the two years' notice which was contained in the 1937 Order shall be reduced to six months' notice. The object is to enable the Government of Burma to give notice that the present arrangements should terminate on 31st March, 1947, the day following being regarded as the earliest date upon which the proposed Currency Board could take over the management of the currency of Burma. The second Amendment referred to in the draft Order is to authorise the Governor to continue his function to manage the currency until 31st March, 1947, it being obviously undesirable to require the Reserve Bank of India to resume its former control for six months from 30th September of this year until 31st March of next year. The effect, therefore, will be to empower the Government of Burma to continue, until 31st March of next year, to manage the currency. These Amendments have been considered and agreed to by the Government of India.

7.19 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I am afraid that this Order is not quite as simple as the last one, and I wish to put some questions to the Under-Secretary of State which I hope he will answer, by leave of the House. There 's an explanatory note to this Order, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that it is a very good practice to have explanatory notes to Orders, especially when they affect overseas Governments, with the machinery of which hon. Members may not be familiar. In the second paragraph, the note reads:
Under these Orders the Governor of Burma is responsible for the management of the currency, but the Reserve Bank of India acts as the Governor's agent in currency matters and is banker to the Government and to other Banks. The currencies of India and Burma are effectively linked together by the facilities for the free exchange of Burma and British India currency through the Reserve Bank.
That is quite clear. It then goes on to say:
It has now been recommended by the Governor of Burma, that the currency' link with India should be severed, and that the sanction of Parliament should be sought to shorten the period of notice prescribed in the Monetary Arrangements Order of 1937.
I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation but he did not give any very long or adequate reason why this action has been taken. This seems to me to raise a big question of principle. I was not familiar with the course of legislation of Orders in Council affecting Burma which passed through this House. Has there been any previous Debate on this matter? As we know, the Government of Burma at the present time are merely an interim Government on their own. Has the opinion of His Majesty's Government been sought on this currency matter? Has it any bearing, and if so what, upon Burma's foreign trade—its trade with this country and with India? There seems to be a question of principle involved, or am I wrong in this contention, and is it merely a question of convenience? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will answer those questions?

7.21 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: I quoted the Order that was made in 1937. Paragraph 21, which is the relevant Section, provides as follows:


Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, this part of this Order shall cease to have effect on the expiration of two years from the date on which a notice determining the operation thereof is given to the Governor-General by the Governor of Burma or to the Governor of Burma by the Governor-General, so, however, that no such notice shall be given before the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.
I am advised that it was the intention of Parliament at that time that following the separation of Burma from India, for at least two years, as provided in this paragraph, the currency of Burma would be linked up with that of India, and indeed, the Federal Reserve Bank was made the manager of the Burma currency. The object was that after two years had expired it would be possible for the Legislative Assembly and the Government of Burma to decide what currency arrangements they wished to establish in Burma. It is true that at the present moment the Governor is enjoying what is called direct rule, that is to say, he has not only his own reserve powers under Section 7, but all the legislative power of the former Legislature under the Government of Burma Act, 1935, Section 33. Under Sections 7 and 33 the Governor of Burma, acting with the Executive Council as his advisers, can in present circumstances, once notice has been properly given, determine what currency arrangements should be made for Burma.
The details of the scheme have not yet been finalised, but discussions have taken place not only with the representatives of the Government of India and the Federal Reserve Bank of India on the point of terminating the present arrangement, but also with representatives of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Burma Office on this side in order to settle the basis of the proposed currency law. I am advised that it is within the constitutional powers for the Governor, even in present circumstances, to determine, once the present arrangements have been brought to an end, what shall be the basis of the currency and whether or not it is desirable to have a particular currency arrangement. Only last month Parliament altered the previous arrangement by transferring the management of the currency from the Reserve Bank of India to the Governor of Burma, pending, as I indicated during the discussion at that time, the settlement of the long-term proposals.

Earl Winterton: This is really a very important matter. As I understand it, the effect of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said—and I hope the House will take note of this—is that this Government, which is practically an autocratic Government, as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted, is being given by this Order a completely free hand to do what it will with the currency of Burma.

Mr. Henderson: No, the Governor of Burma himself is subject to the control of this House through the Secretary of State, and, therefore, anything that the Governor of Burma does under Section 7 can be controlled, first of all by the Secretary of State for Burma and secondly through the control by this House of the Secretary of State.

Earl Winterton: There is one further question I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would not require a fresh Order. Is it not a fact that this Order confers upon the Governor of Burma, or the Secretary of State, whoever it may be, complete power to deal with the currency of Burma without recourse to this House?

Mr. Henderson: No, this House can always insist, as the noble Lord knows as well as I do, on its right of scrutinising anything any Government Department does in the way of policy. Surely, the noble Lord will accept that?

Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — BURMA (LEGISLATURE)

7.29 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (House of Representatives) (Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
This Motion is consequential upon a Measure which has just become law and which prescribes that the age of 21 laid down in the Franchise Act in respect of the general constituencies in Burma shall also be the age of qualifying to vote in the special constitutencies which were established under the Government of


Burma Act, 1935. The University of Rangoon constituency, eleven Commerce and Industry constituencies, and the four Labour constituencies will now be subject to this qualification at 21, as provided in the Franchise Act itself for the general constituencies.

7.30 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I am very glad that the Government have stood firm against some of their less instructed supporters—I cannot imagine any other term which would more adequately describe them—and have resisted the efforts of these less instructed supporters, to use a euphemistic term, and refused to agree to the ridiculous point they put forward that the voting in the whole of Burma should be at the age of 18. I notice that none of those supporters is present in the House at the moment. I would congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the quality which he has shown, and which is very rare in the present Government, of standing fast against the ignorance of his own supporters.

Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned "—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 12th July].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of Principal Act.)

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 5, to leave out from "words", to the end of line 9, and to insert:
following after the word ' upon,' shall be omitted and there shall be inserted the words the Secretary General and all Assistant Secretaries General of the United Nations in respect of themselves, their spouses and minor children, the privileges and immunities accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and upon any persons who are representatives of a member Government to the General Assembly or any Council or other organisation of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, the privileges and immunities accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign accredited to His Majesty other than

the right to claim exemption from customs duties on goods imported (otherwise than as part of their personal luggage, or from excise duties or from taxes or rates':" —[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part Of the Schedule."

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: When this Debate was interrupted last Friday afternoon, in its agreeable flow through that summer day, we had reached a series of Amendments which, for the convenience of the Committee, you, Major Milner, agreed should be discussed as a whole. I had begun, following my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to explain in further detail, and in reply to the Minister in charge of the Bill, why we still hoped that, in the friendly atmosphere which he had created in earlier stages, he would see his way to accept our point of view. I would pay a tribute to the way in which he has met us over other Amendments, and to the assurances that he gave us on two important points which allowed us to withdraw our Amendments. If he could not meet us in all respects, at any rate he adopted a conciliatory attitude, and realised the very large issues which were raised, quite rightly, by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. We have now passed from the treatment of organisations to the treatment of individuals. I venture to repeat what I said then in this respect. I think the Minister will agree with me that, in granting privileges to individuals, we need to exercise even greater care and scrutiny than in granting them to organisations.
This is an age of privilege. Privilege has never been so valued as in these times. Before, privilege was a courtesy or a convenience. It is now a high and valued perquisite. In an age of high taxation, the value of the modern privileges of untaxed salaries and of free allowances has reached almost astronomical figures, calculated in gross values. The free flat, the free motor car, the freedom from taxation and from rates; all those things have become immensely valuable properties. Therefore, we ought to be careful, in granting these privileges, to make sure that we are doing the right thing. An untaxed bottle of gin is worth a king's ransom today. It used to be


said that there was one law for the rich and one for the poor. I do not think that was ever true in our polity; but let us be careful that there is not one law for the commissar and one law for the people.
Therefore, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, we approach the question of privileges granted to individuals with the idea of careful scrutiny. We have not, of course, gone so far as to use such strong words as were used to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors by the last Opposition. I do not know where the Minister of Health has been during these Debates. I do wish he would come and join in at some of his old battles. I have amused and interested myself in looking up his speeches. The violent opposition which he gave in 1944 to this proposal should be compared with the temperate, friendly and accommodating attitude which my hon. Friends and myself have tried to take in order to meet the Minister's difficulties.
Broadly speaking, we feel that much has happened since the Bill of 1944 was introduced and withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and reintroduced. U.N.O. has met and the Convention has been made. It is our purpose, if we can, to persuade Ministers that the Bill should carry out the Convention and that it should neither go less far nor farther than the Convention in granting privileges to individuals. The purpose of our Amendments, taken as a whole, is to secure that the Convention should be embodied in the Act of Parliament. That is our purpose. There are one or two points in which. curiously enough, the Bill does not go so far as the Convention, does not carry out the Convention. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Section 13 of the Convention on page 4, I think he will find, so far as can see, that the point has not been dealt with at all in the Bill. That is our view. Section 13 deals with the incidence of taxation in regard to residence, but that is not covered in the Bill. Curiously enough in this respect, the Bill falls short of the Convention. It is for that reason that I have inserted an Amendment in this sequence of Amendments. It is the second part of our Amendment to Schedule 1, in page 3, line 21, after the word "Kingdom" to insert:

and in determining the usual place of abode regard shall not be had to residence for the purpose of discharging any official duty. And further provided that the Order in Council shall not confer.
The purpose of it is to deal with this omission, as we think it is. It shows how scrupulously correct we are in taking the line that we wish to carry out the Convention. That is the point where the Bill has failed wholly to cover the Convention. The purpose of the Amendments is to go a little wider than the Bill in order that the Bill may embrace something which was agreed on in the Convention.
In many other respects the Bill goes beyond the Convention. First of all, the only people which the Convention recommends should be covered with full diplomatic privilege are those mentioned in Section 19 of the Convention, that is To say, the Secretary-General and all assistant secretaries-general, their spouses, their minor children and so forth. That was laid down in the Convention. The all goes further than that and allows this diplomatic privilege to be given to another and wider field. The Bill deals with organisations other than U.N.O. We have had a very strong assurance from the Minister on that point, which we accept; but we point out that the Bill, when it comes to individuals, allows the higher officers of those organisations other. than U.N.O. organisations, such as the I.L.O., let us say, or the European Coal Commission, to be given full diplomatic privileges.
Moreover, the experts on those various commissions come under the Bill and can be given—I do not say will be—by Order in Council full diplomatic privileges, whereas the Convention says that they shall be given such privileges and immunities as are necessary to carry out their functions. That is a different point. The official representatives of member Governments are given full diplomatic privileges all the time that they are representatives, whether they are actually on duty or not. The Convention requires only that they should be given those privileges if they arise out of their duties. In other words, representatives of member Governments are only to have privileges in England if they are here on duty, and not if they are here for a holiday. In that respect, the Bill goes beyond the Convention.
Next, the right hon. Gentleman criticised the Amendments because he said it was very difficult—I think it is true, as we have found from our own experience — so to draw the terms of a Bill as to carry out precisely in legal language all that is required in the Convention. I think I may venture to say that I believe his criticisms are not quite correct. He said that in one respect the Bill is going further than the Convention. He said that Section 11 only gave in (a)
immunity from personal arrest or detention, from seizure of personal baggage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1946; Vol. 425. c. 826.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that our Amendment went further. I think he has failed to observe that Section 11 of the Convention says, after setting out in paragraphs (a) to (f) the, precise advantages which would be given, goes on in paragraph (g) to add this:
Such other privileges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing as diplomatic envoys enjoy.
Therefore, I think that our Amendments properly cover Section 11 (a) to (g) of the Convention. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to give an example of what he called the reverse of being too broad. He said that we were too narrow. He failed to see the whole sequence of these Amendments, and overlooked our Amendment to the First Schedule, page 3, line 21, which, taken in conjunction with the Amendment which we are now discussing, will have the effect that is required. We have included in our Amendment to page 3, line 21, Section 13, which was altogether forgotten and omitted from the Bill. Broadly speaking, the purpose of our Amendments taken as a whole is to carry out the Convention. To adapt an old political slogan, it is "The Convention, the whole Convention, and nothing but the Convention." We take our stand on that and rebut absolutely the attempt which the right hon. Gentleman made to say that because we opposed, on insufficient explanation from the Government, the Second Reading of this Bill we were in any way operating against U.N.O. We opposed it with far less vigour, and much more sensibly, than the right hon. Gentleman's friends and colleagues opposed the earlier Measure a year ago.
The next line of defence which the Minister had was to say, "Well, of

course, these are maximum powers. You must let me go a little beyond the Convention. I will not operate these maximum powers. I only have the right to make Orders." I am always doubtful about Governments asking for powers and saying that they do not propose to use them. It is always a very dangerous form of legislation. Why act by Order in Council at all? The Minister of Health had some very potent observations to make on this subject. He said:
Why should it be necessary that there should be an Order in Council If it is proposed to confer immunity upon certain persons, or a certain category of persons, why cannot that be included in the Schedule to the Bill? Why should we have to wait for an Order in Council? When an Order in Council comes into force we cannot amend it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th September, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 366.]
and so forth. We have not gone so far as that. Nevertheless, I feel that the argument that one should take powers which one does not propose to use is always very dangerous and one which we are entitled, and have the duty, to examine. I am quite certain that if and when the happy moment comes that hon. Gentlemen opposite find themselves on these benches, this kind of Bill will be scrutinised by them with care, not necessarily of the violent and extravagant nature of the Minister of Health and his friends, but with that care which will come from experience and following their traditional duties. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the number of immunities which will be granted would be very few. He made great play of that and read out how few they would be—practically none; hardly anybody at all. That is the old story of the housemaid's baby—it is only a little one. The thing is either right or wrong, and the fact that few people will get these advantages is not the point.

The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I was asked the question and gave the answer.

Mr. Macmillan: But the right hon. Gentleman made great play of that. The point is, is it a good thing or a bad thing? It is a good thing to carry out the Convention. On that we are absolutely agreed. I must make some reference to what I thought was a bitter and rather uncalled for attack which the right hon. Gentleman made on my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir


J. Boyd Orr). The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities is a very old friend of mine, and I am proud to think that I was instrumental in making well known some of his earlier writings. I was astonished at the attack which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to make upon him. In his defence and in trying to prove how few of these officials would ever come to England or to Scotland, he said:
The director of the Food and Agricultural Organisation, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr), might, conceivably, reside in this country, but in fact he resides in the United States, and there is every reason to believe that he will continue to do so, … —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1946; Vol.
425, C. 825.]
I had the good or ill fortune to reside abroad during a period of the war, but I should have been very angry if the Prime Minister had said that the right hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, as I was then, has gone to Algiers and is never likely to return.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he is enjoying himself, but the point is that so long as the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr) remains the director, he must be at the seat of the Food and Agricultural Organisation. It is extremely improbable that the seat of that Organisation will be in this country.

Mr. Macmillan: The problem of how the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities is to draw his Parliamentary salary, how it is to be taxed, and which part is privileged and which is not is more inscrutable than before. If I were the hon. Gentleman, on reading this I should be very much annoyed to be told that as far as the Government knew the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities had no intention of ever carrying out his duties in this House.
I have tried to cover the points upon which we are at difference and since the right hon. Gentleman has made so soon a recovery from the shock of the Second Reading— he has shown great good will during the most recent stages of the Bill—I am going to put a proposition to him which I hope he will agree to. This series of Amendments is intended to carry out the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman argued the other day that they contained mistakes and legal

errors. We have had fairly good advice on them and believe them to be sound, but if they require some minor amendment, the Government with all its legal advice—which it is entitled to receive but scarcely ever does receive on the Floor of the House— no doubt could think of better words. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give us an undertaking that between now and the Report stage he would try to redraft the Bill in these particulars, either by accepting our Amendments or by re-embodying them in a new form so as carry out the Convention and nothing more, so as to give these privileges only to those people agreed upon in the Convention. We have met the right hon. Gentleman very well on the subject of the organisations because he gave us a pledge, if we withdrew our Amendment, that if it were found that the international court required some more privileges he would bring in a one-Clause Bill and not operate by Order in Council.
I know the attraction of privilege. We who belong to the ender-privileged classes realise how terrible is the attraction of privilege and how it grows upon those in office. But I do not want to join issue to get an agreement. The purpose of our Amendments is to embody the Convention in the Bill and not to permission to the Government to make Orders in Council granting privileges to persons beyond the Convention. Perhaps the Minister would look at them as a whole. After all, his predecessor had to take back the Bill and redraft it to meet the demands of the House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to redraft the Bill to carry out the Convention, I and my hon. Friends would be happy to agree that the further stages of the Bill in those considerations should be carried without more ado as an agreed Measure.

Mr. Wilson Harris: It is inevitable that a Measure of this kind should be discussed to some extent on party lines. That is the tradition of the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) has gone very far towards obliterating party divisions on this subject and, speaking as one who is not associated with any party. I would like to join very cordially with him in the appeal he has made to the right hon. Gentleman


the Minister of State. This Bill is entitled:
An Act to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, in connection with the general convention on privileges and immunities of the United Nations approx ed at the first General Assembly.…
Any one who is devoted to exercises in stretching can, of course, stretch the words "in connection with" to whatever extent he likes, but I submit that the normal reading of that phrase is "in conformity with the general convention on privileges and immunities of the United Nations," and that a reasonable request to the House is that it should pass a Bill which would carry out the intentions of this Convention and that it is not reasonable to come and ask the House to do something considerably more than that.
I imagine that the members of the General Assembly who have passed this Convention undertook to go to their respective countries and draft legislation carrying out what the Convention said; just that, and, I imagine, in most cases nothing more. If I may venture to say so, I think the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley is most reasonable and, if it were acceded to, would result in the very best kind of settlement; one which would be agreed in all quarters of the House. Therefore, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend at any rate to consider very carefully between now and the next stage of the Bill, whether he cannot go very far, if not all the way, towards meeting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the appeal made to him both by my right hon. Friend and by the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). It is now clear beyond argument that the series of Amendments which the Committee is now discussing give the right hon. Gentleman what he told the House on Second Reading he required, that is to say, the implementation of the Convention. I am perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman looks at them closely, he cannot but come to that conclusion. There is only one point in support of what has been said which I would wish to urge

upon the right hon. Gentleman, and that is this; if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at the Amendment to Schedule 1, page 3, line 21—to leave out from "proviso," to the end of line 23, and to insert:
after the word 'taxes' there shall be inserted the words 'other than as permitted by Part III the Schedule hereto,' and after the word 'Kingdom' there shall be inserted the words 'and in determining the usual place of abode regard shall not be had to residence for the purpose of discharging any official duty. And further provided that the Order in Council shall not confer,'
—he will see that it deals with the Bill's own Amendments to the proviso to Section 1(2) of the Act of 1944. The Committee will recollect that under that proviso in the Act of 1944 it was laid down as the result of discussion in the House, that these tax privileges should not apply to British subjects resident in the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, that proviso will be modified to the extent of permitting to such persons freedom from taxation upon their official salaries. Surely that is all that the right hon. Gentleman needs? If he persists in the Bill as it stands, it will mean that British subjects resident in the United Kingdom will have the same fiscal privileges as foreign diplomats are accorded when they are accredited to the Court of St. James. It is illuminating to see what those privileges are. I can quote no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman himself when he said in the last day's Debate that such people first of all received freedom from taxation upon British Government securities they held and, secondly, freedom from taxation upon all their overseas investments. I am referring to column 824, Vol. 425, of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 12th July last.
What justification is there for according to British subjects resident in the United Kingdom freedom from taxation both upon British Government securities and upon their overseas investments? No sort of argument has yet been adduced to support the proposition that unless they have that immunity, they cannot properly do their jobs under these international organisations and, indeed, it would be a somewhat surprising proposition to suggest that was so. If they get, as this Amendment gives them, freedom from national taxation upon their salaries, that is surely all that is needed for


efficient working. I do not want to make any fantastic suggestions as to the possibilities of abuse under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, but surely it stands out that if you place a British subject in this country in the position that all his overseas investments are free from tax, you are subjecting that individual to a very great temptation to see to it that all his capital is invested in foreign securities, which I should have thought was a financial inducement wholly alien to the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of State will accept the proposition, so moderately and lucidly put, that those privileges are not necessary for the efficient working of these international organisations.
The only other point is this: As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, there is in the Bill no provision to implement Section 13 of the Convention; at least I have not been able to find it. I hope, if I am in error, that the right hon. Gentleman will point it out. That provision to include the important effect of Section 13 of the Convention is included in this Amendment, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not only accept that as an earnest of the sincerity with which these Amendments are put forward to implement the Convention, but if he cannot see his way to accept it, that he will point out to the Committee where in the Bill is the implementation of Section 13 of the Convention. Because, if he has failed in his Bill to implement Section 13, then his Bill does not do what on the Second Reading he told the House it was intended to do, that is to say, to implement the Convention. No doubt through an oversight, it would appear that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to ask this Committee to carry out our international obligation, which I am perfectly certain he would be the last man to deny is a most serious matter. Having put those two points to the right hon. Gentleman, may I once again repeat the hope that he will accept the spirit in which these Amendments are put forward, and indicate his willingness to accept them?

Lieut. -Commander Joynson-Hicks: May I add a word in support of the plea made to the right hon. Gentleman, not because I think I can put it any more forcibly or reasonably

or sympathetically than my right hon. Friend has done, but because I feel it is a question which cannot be too much emphasised? I am most deeply opposed to any legislation which takes powers that the Government do not immediately see the need to use. It may be some relief to hon. Gentlemen to know that I opposed that in the last Government. When I was a supporter of that Government, there were occasions—I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will recall one or two in which he was interested—when the Government sought to take powers more than they could immediately see the need to use.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Surely that was the last Government but one?

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I appreciate the correction, and I am grateful for the reminder that we did have one happy interlude. But even on those occasions, during the period of the last Government but one, I opposed that as a matter of principle, and I shall continue to oppose it as a matter of principle whatever Government seek to take powers which they cannot see the immediate necessity for using, because I believe it is bad constitutionally, legally and morally. I do not think it is really material to the discussion we are having whether the actual number of people visualised is eight, as I think was estimated by the right hon. Gentleman, or seven, or nine, or any such number. The question is the principle involved. Wherever we are extending to people privileges over and above those which the mass of the community enjoy, we are by so much diminishing the privileges of the mass of the community. That is a thing which I believe we in this Committee should watch very carefully.
It has been mentioned before that it is strange to see the building up of a privileged body coming from the Government at the present time. What we on this side of the Committee want to see is the extension of privilege to all citizens of our own country. We do not want to see their privileges diminished in any way by the uprising of a privileged body whether members of our own community, British subjects, or foreign subjects coining into this country—a privileged body created by statute, and under statu


tory powers. I hope we shall ensure that we do not go beyond the Convention to which we are pledged. I fully sympathise and agree with the Government in their desire to do all that is necessary, advisable and possible to make for a happy, successful and fluent working of U.N.O. We want it to do its work successfully. It is laid down in the Convention how far the organisation feels it necessary for Governments to go, in order to ensure working on smooth and satisfactory lines. Let us go so far, and do what the body itself invites us to do. But, I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to limit our activities to the extent of the Convention, and not start a sort of competitive spirit between the countries of the world who are members of the United Nations organisation, in setting up privileged bodies who may visit the different capitals of the world in connection with U.N.O. business.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I was very much obliged for the words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) at the beginning of his speech. In fact, he is much too kind to me, and much too modest himself. As other hon. Members have pointed out already, he played a great part in lowering the temperature of our Debates and enabling—if he will forgive me for saying so—his party to recover from the shock of the Second Reading and in saving them from the dangerous courses—dangerous to them—on which they had begun to embark. I speak with genuine gratitude on behalf of the Government, and I think of everyone in the Committee, when I say that we are grateful to him. He actually made the proposals on the basis of which earlier difficulties between the two sides of the Committee were solved, and if he can make a proposal which could solve our present difficuty, no one would be happier than I, or readier to accept it.
I still hope we may finish this Committee stage in a very short time, because, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, in spite of rather spirited interchanges in the earlier Debates, we have arrived at a common purpose. If I say that I find it very difficult to accept these Amendments—I shall explain why—if I think it would create difficulties for His

Majesty's Government and for Parliament itself to accept them, and that it would make it very difficult for us to carry out the Convention, I still think that, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, we are agreed on what we want to do. I hope I can show that we are not rejecting the Amendments out of any spirit of obstinacy or amour proper.
Before I deal with the Amendment, perhaps the Committee would permit a word about two points which arose in our last discussion which I ought to amplify a little. The first dealt with the application of this system of diplomatic immunities for international organisations to the Colonial Empire. In answer to an interjection from the right hon. Gentleman, I said that the system of these immunities would apply to the Colonial Empire and perhaps it may be that the phrasing in HANSARD is that the Bill would apply. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Act of 1944 does not, in fact, apply to the Colonial Empire. It is made effective by legislation, by the local legislative bodies in different areas, and we intend the same thing in this Bill. When I answered, I meant that we intended to make the system effective throughout the Colonial Empire, and that we will do it, as it was done in the Act of 1944. Secondly, I was asked about the meaning of Clause 1 (2) of the Bill when the Schedule had been amended. The point was whether the practical effect of Orders in Council which had already been made under the 1944 Act, would be wider when this Bill was passed, because those existing Orders referred to parts of the Schedule of the 1944 Act, and by this Act those Schedules would have been altered. I said on Friday that this Subsection would have the effect of preventing such automatic widening. At the request of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) I said I would look further into the matter. I have done so in consultation with Parliamentary Counsel and now I wish to say that my previous statement is correct and the words
The foregoing Section shall not affect the operation of any Order in Council already made 
mean not only that the Order in Council will not be cancelled but also that its practical effect will not be altered.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman said that he consulted with Parlia


mentary Counsel. Does that mean the Legal Department of the Foreign Office, or the Law Officer of the Government—the Attorney-General?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It means the legal advisers to the Foreign Office, and also those who help to draft Bills, the department commonly known as that of Parliamentary Counsel, who have primary responsibility for drawing up legislation presented to the House.
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that we have a common purpose, and I accept his definition of it as he gave it in our last discussion. He said:
All of us are ….anxious to carry out the Convention. The Convention was made, and we agreed with it. It is a good Convention. Our purpose is to see that it is carried out, not only because we put our name to it—which, after all, is a good reason for carrying out an international agreement—but because it is also wise if the United Nations Organisation and the associate organisations, so to speak, are to become efficient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Friday, 12th July, 1946: Vol. 425, c. 828.]
I accept that. I can quote other sentences from the right hon. Gentleman with which I am in full agreement. We are agreed on the purpose, and I thought we were agreed—I still hope we are—on the substance of what is necessary to carry out the convention. We agree that we have got to give power to the Government, by legislation, to give to the United Nations organisation the privileges and immunities which the Convention provides for that organisation as an organisation. But we also agreed, on the basis of undertakings which I gave, and which I shall repeat in a precise form—I hope an agreed form—on the Report stage, that these privileges must also be given to other organisations besides the United Nations in the strict sense of the Councils, the Assembly and the Secretariat established by the Charter.
We must also give it to what are called the specialised agencies, the other bodies which we discussed at great length in earlier Debates. I think that after those Debates no one now resists the view that this Bill must apply to them as well as to the United Nations Organisation proper. I thought we were all agreed that in order that these organisations may be able to function, privileges and immunities must be given to four classes of persons who will do the actual work—representatives of Governments, who are dealt with in

Article IV of the Convention; high officials, the subordinate officials——

Mr. Pickthorn: Are high officials Class 2? Is the right hon. Gentleman still dealing with the first class, or has he gone on to the second class?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The first class is representatives of Governments. They are dealt with in Article IV of the Convention. Then officials, firstly of higher rank, secondly of subordinate rank, who are dealt with together in Article V of the Convention. These are two more classes, if I may so phrase it; this is only my own classification for present purposes. Lastly, there are experts, members of Commissions of inquiry, etc., who are dealt with in Article VI of the Convention. I hope I understand that hon. Members opposite are agreed that people of those four categories, who are working not only for the United Nations proper, but also for the associated organisations. must all have the privileges that are granted under the Convention. I think that is plainly the intention of the Assembly, because the Resolution attached to the. Convention says that the immunities given to these other organisations shall be unified—the word in this Resolution is "unification," on page 8 of the Convention. I hope it is understood that in all these four categories there must be some people connected with all these organisations who must have these rights and privileges.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I think the right hon. Gentleman may have given the impression—I am quite sure by mistake —that these four classes of people were to have the same type of privileges. He referred to Article V, which deals with two sets of people, officials who will have the privileges of Section 18, and certain specified people who have extra privileges, which are laid down in Section 19. We are trying to ensure that the appropriate types of privilege shall be given to the appropriate types of these categories of persons. All we ask the right hon. Gentleman is to put them into the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman is admirably making my argument for me. My whole point is that there must be different privileges under the Convention' for each of these four


categories, and in fact the privileges for each of these categories in respect of each organisation may differ in some degree, we hope as little as possible. It is that which makes it so extraordinarily difficult to draft a Bill which will cover all these possible cases satisfactorily. As I have said, we want, as hon. Members opposite want, to have a Bill which will enable us to give the necessary privileges, and no more, to each of these four categories of people who are concerned with each of the international organisations under discussion.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put one point? Under the Bill, Section 1 (2, b) of the principal Act, as amended, provides that these higher privileges should be conferred on such persons employed upon or on behalf of the organisations as may be so specified. That means that those persons and missions can get the full privileges of a diplomatic envoy. There is no recommendation to that effect in the Convention. so far as I can see.

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, they will not, until we make Orders in Council, which Parliament can annul, get the full privileges of a diplomatic envoy. In fact, it would be extraordinarily difficult to draft into the Bill what they will get. I will come to the point when I reach the Amendments which have been put down by the hon. and learned Member and his friends.
Hon. Members opposite—I am not trying to be patronising—have shown great industry and ingenuity in drawing up their Amendments, and have done an excellent piece of work. But with great respect, they do not carry out the Convention, and they get into a great number of difficulties of which I will give some illustrations. I say so after having examined the Amendments in the most sympathetic spirit and I say it in no carping spirit, but simply because it illustrates my contention that the matter is a great deal more difficult than they have thought. I should like nothing better than to accept these Amendments and finish with the Bill, if that would really solve the problem. I am asked, firstly, on the point raised today about Section 13 of the Convention, why is there no reference in the Bill to Section

13 of the Convention, which deals with residence and taxation? I am advised it is because we need no legislation in this country to deal with that matter, because it embodies a principle already recognised by our Revenue law as applicable to people who have diplomatic status. Therefore, it does not need to be stated again here.

Mr. H. Macmillan: That would only apply, therefore, to people who have full diplomatic status, not to the minor type of privileges which the right hon. Gentleman says the Government are to give under Order in Council?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think it is all right, but I will look into it and answer the right hon. Gentleman.
Let me come to another point. Take Section 1 (2, b) as hon. Members opposite seek to amend it. It is the point I have already dealt with. As it is here drafted, the powers could only be exercised by the Government with regard to the United Nations organisation and what, for the purpose of brevity, I might call the specialised agencies would be excluded. We have already agreed on an earlier Amendment that they should not be excluded.

Mr. H. Macmillan: We are dealing with the Schedule, not with Section (2, b).

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at it, he will see I am right, and that the effect of this Amendment would be to cut out other organisations which ought not to be cut out.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean "cut out other organisations." It would cut out individuals of other organisations from getting privileges which are not recommended in the Convention.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It would cut out those who want to serve these organisations in various capacities, whether as delegates or as officials or as experts on Commissions. I thought I had established, a few minutes ago, that it was the clear intent of our early discussions that such persons were to have privileges. I am not trying to score a point. These Amendments, if accepted, would cut these people out and therefore would not produce the effect which hon. Members


opposite desire. There is another point about the representatives to the Assembly and to other conferences. The proposers of the Amendments have left out Section 16 of the Convention which makes the expression "representatives" include members of delegations down to the rank of secretaries of delegations. That is a very important point. It was only put in Section 16 after long discussion, because it is required, but the Amendment which the hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward, would not deal with that.
Thirdly, there is the point which I mentioned on Friday, and on which I was challenged, namely that, in dealing with the privileges of representatives to the Assembly or to conferences, the Amendment gives too much by way of immunity of suit to representatives in one way and too little in another. I said it would give too much to them in giving them full immunity from suit whereas Section 11 (a) of the Convention very deliberately and carefully refrained from giving full immunity. "Ah," say the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley, "but you have forgotten sub-paragraph (g) of the same Section which says that such other privileges, immunities, and so on, as diplomatic envoys enjoy shall be granted to these people." With respect, I think the right hon. Gentleman missed the effect of the words which he read, which came in the first line of that subparagraph:
Such other privileges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing ….
It is quite plain that full immunity from suit would be inconsistent with the foregoing——

Mr. Macmillan: Mr. Macmillanindicated dissent.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Sub-paragraph (a) would not appear at all unless it was intended to restrict the full immunity from suit. I do not think the contrary thesis could be maintained. Subparagraph (a) would be nonsense unless it was so intended and unless that was its real effect. On the other hand—and here I think hon. Members did not challenge what I said—it gives too little because, in its limitation of immunity to the period of representation only, it runs counter to Section 12 of the Convention. That is a point they have not met.
In the fifth place, we come to the Amendment which deals with experts on temporary missions referred to in Article 6 of the Convention. The Amendment would put them into Part III of the Schedule, with subordinate officials. Of course, the Convention does not give full diplomatic rights to these experts in the sense that an envoy has them. That is true. That is part of the purpose, but it gives them what they require. It specifically defines what they require. It says, for example, that they must have immunity from personal arrest in the full sense. That is in Section 22 (a). In Section 22 (c) it says they must have inviolability for all papers and documents. If they were in the place where hon. Members opposite would put them—in the third part of the Schedule—if they were classed as subordinate officials, they would not have those two rights. Therefore, once more, the Amendment of hon. Members opposite would not carry out the intention of the Convention.
The sixth example is the proviso to Section 1 (2). The Amendment proposed by hon. Members opposite has been studied carefully. We find the matter not very easy to interpret but we think it certainly introduces to some extent the nationality criterion. We think in attempting to follow Section 13 of the Convention—the provision which excludes periods spent at conferences, and so forth, from being counted as residence where incidence of taxation, depends upon residence—it applies it, not merely to the representatives and the members, as it should properly be applied according to the Convention, but also to officials, whereas under the Convention this provision should not be applied to officials. I give one more illustration. In Part III of the Schedule further items are sought to be added by hon. Members opposite in their Amendments, sub-paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6) which correspond to subparagraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Section 18 of the Convention. It was industrious and ingenious of hon. Members opposite to find out that those provisions had been omitted from the Bill. They were omitted for the reason that the obligations contained in that part of the Schedule can be carried out by executive action by His Majesty's Government. They do not require legislation and we did not put into the Bill something that was unnecessary.
I said I would be very glad to accept an Amendment if the Amendment would do what hon. Members opposite want to do, and what we want to do, namely, to carry out the Convention. I ask them to reflect again on what I said when I was interrupted early in these present remarks, that in this Convention we have to take powers to give privileges to four different categories of people, the privileges which are necessary for each of those categories; that they have to be applied to a large number of different organisations and, while we hope there will be as great a unification as possible, it will not be the same for all the organisations. There will be some required for some of the organisations and not for others, and in each we want to reduce the privileges to the minimum.
We think the right plan was to adopt this form of legislation which, so to speak, sets a maximum; which gives us power to give to each organisation what is required for each of the four categories and no more —a maximum which we can and will cut down by our Orders in Council. I have explained why—and I am sure hon. Members opposite will agree, now they 'have heard my explanation—their Amendment really will not do. We have been thinking about this throughout these Debates because the point was made very early. We have come to the conclusion that it would not be reasonable to do it in the way hon. Members suggest. I have given pledge after pledge that we will not do more than the Convention requires us to do. As hon. Members opposite know, of course, they can annul any Order when it comes up. If it was annulled, we should have to amend the Order and, of course, we should do that. This system gives us the elasticity which may be needed; if in our dealings with these new organisations we make mistakes then without legislation the thing can quite easily be put right. I hope on the basis of what I have said, hon. Members opposite will agree that our method is right and I hope they will give us the Bill without further discussion or Division.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not intend to take very long in dealing with the points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman but I intend, if I can, to follow him with regard to each point which he made. He started by

saying it was very difficult to accept the Amendments. I was glad to hear him say he was not rejecting them out of any spirit of obstinacy or amour proper. If that be the case—and I, of course, accept his statement to that effect—I think on further consideration he will see that the defects which he has pointed out in these Amendments, so far as there is any substance in his criticism, are defects which can very easily be remedied by a matter of drafting.
I want to say a word about what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to Clause 1 (2), which provides that:
The foregoing subsection shall not affect the operation of any Order in Council.
I must say that, when one looks, for instance, at the European Coal Organisation Order, which says, in terms, that the privileges which certain people have should be the privileges set out under Part II of the Act, it is true that the Order in Council under Clause 1 (2) will not be affected. That I can see straightaway, but I think that, when we take out the original Part II and put in a new Part II, it does entirely alter the effect of the European Coal Organisation Order in Council. I do not feel the confidence which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed about that He says he has been advised by Parliamentary counsel. I am sorry that there is no Law Officer present who could throw further light on the subject. I am not in the least confident on that matter, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will look into it again between now and the Report stage—we often have Acts intended to mean one thing, meaning another when they get into the courts to make quite sure that the matter is properly covered.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Amendment does not carry out the Convention. Our criticism of the Bill is that it does not carry out the Convention, and that does strengthen the plea which my right hon. Friend put forward, and which I put forward when I said that I regarded the Convention as an excellent document. It lends force to the plea that the right hon. Gentleman should really have a shot at making this Bill conform to the Convention, which it does not do now, and which he admitted it did not do when he moved the Second Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman, between now and the Report stage, could


put down an Amendment to make it conform to the Convention, I think he would find that the Bill would have a very speedy passage. The first thing which the right hon. Gentleman criticised was the provision of our Amendment for Section 13 of the Convention being covered. He made that his specific criticism, but he has told us tonight that no legislation was necessary because that protection is given to persons having full diplomatic status. That is very different from what he told us on the last occasion. On the last occasion, he criticised us—it will be found in column 827 of HANSARD— for not making any provision with regard to Section 13 of the Convention. We now get criticism from the right hon. Gentleman for not doing it in the first place, and he attacks our Amendment because we have done it. He really cannot have the best of both worlds, and there is not much substance in that criticism. If it is not necessary to put it in, we are content to leave it out, but he should not attack us on that account.
In regard to Clause 1 (1, b), the right hon. Gentleman said it would cut out the individuals of other organisations not connected with U.N.O. Now, this Bill was intended to carry out the Convention, and, as far as I can see from the terms in which it is drafted, we have, in fact, limited the higher categories of individuals who are given the full privileges of a diplomatic envoy in accordance with the recommendations of the Convention, whereas, in fact, the Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, with regard to experts on missions, goes very considerably beyond. As to the definition of "representatives" in Section 16 of the Convention, nothing would be easier than to put down an Amendment giving the definition set out in the Convention and including that in the Bill. Really, that is not any argument for not accepting the Amendments as they stand, if that definition Clause is put in.
Now I come to the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of Section 11 of the Convention, and, with the greatest respect to him, I must say that his explanation of the interpretation of that Section is entirely wrong. Let us see what it does. It starts by giving members
immunity from personal arrest or detention … inviolability for all papers and documents, … and also such other privi-

leges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing.
That "and also" in relation to Section 11 (g) means such other privileges additional to those mentioned before. It has been specified before that there is immunity from personal arrest. It is not inconsistent with that grant of immunity, to go on and say that a man can have any other privileges or immunities of a diplomatic envoy, and if the words are intended to mean what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not think the Convention is so well expressed as I originally thought it was. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at that again very carefully.
With regard to the experts, there is nothing in the Convention which says that any expert should have the full privileges of a diplomatic envoy. The Bill provides for that being given. There is really no reason why the Bill should not follow the form of the Convention very closely. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the extra words which we seek to add to Part III of the Schedule are unnecessary because the provisions contained in the Convention can be carried out by executive action. The giving of Press rates to the organisations could be carried out by executive action, and there is really no need, as a matter of law, for their insertion in the Bill, when the Post Office is run by the Government, and Cable and Wireless shortly will he. But there is an argument for putting in those words so that anyone who looks at the Act when this Bill has been passed can see precisely what the individual is getting, and what he is not.
For the sake of clarity in our Acts of Parliament, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be precise and specific. Now that he is in a much more friendly mood on this matter, I beg him to say that he will give it still further consideration and see whether he cannot, between now and a later stage, put down Amendments bringing this Bill into line with the Convention —it goes far beyond it at the present lime —limiting the Government powers to what the Convention says they should be. If he will do that, he will find that the Bill will have a much smoother passage than it has had hitherto.

Mr. Wilson Harris: May I put one paint to the right hon. Gentleman, the answer to which will clarify my own mind and probably those of other hon. Members?


There are obviously two questions which arise with regard to this matter. One is whether the Bill, as drafted, accurately carries out the intentions of the Convention. That is a matter of friendly discussion, and no insuperable difficulties arise in regard to it. The other is whether the Government are deliberately intending to go beyond the limit of the Convention. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier speeches that they did so intend. If I understood him aright this evening, he said he was asking for nothing that did not lie within the four corners of the Convention. If it is a matter of the whole Convention and nothing but the Convention, I can follow him al/ the way; if it is not, I cannot.

Mr. John Foster: I wish to detain the Committee for only a short time, in order to examine the reasons underlying this series of Amendments. As the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said, the object of these Amendments is to make the Bill more like the Convention. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought that, in some respects, these Amendments did not carry out the Convention to the full. Our submission is that the Bill put forward by the Government, and this Schedule in particular, does so even less. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to examine the Bill again to see whether he cannot, by making some slight Amendments to our Amendments on the Report stage, bring the Bill into conformity with the Convention.
Why do we attach such importance to this matter? The reason lies very largely, I think, in the aspect of taxation. The effect of the Bill is to give power to the Government to bestow on a large category of foreigners, and on British subjects if they are appointed, the immunity from taxation which is accorded to an envoy. It has now been established, I think, that an envoy does not pay on his foreign income or on his investments in war loans. I am still surprised that an envoy is assessed on income not deducted at the source in England, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate, and if he is going to speak again I would like to hear him say so categorically. It does surprise me that the ambassador of Ruritania is assessed on income arising in England which is not deducted at the

source. Of course, there is no power to make the ambassador pay it, but I would be very surprised if, in fact, such an assessment were made. The reason why it is objectionable to give a larger category of persons this diplomatic immunity—that is to say, larger than is provided in the Convention—is that our practice is wider than that of other countries. We give envoys an exemption in respect of their income larger, for instance, than is given in the United States of America. It would not be the time or the place to advocate a change in diplomatic practice as regards envoys, and as long as it is not changed, envoys in this country will enjoy exemption on their foreign private income which is not accorded to envoys in other countries.
As was said in the Debate on the Second Reading, a British diplomat in America will be assessed on his private income arising in America, even if it is invested in Government securities, and if that diplomat happens to have been resident in America before he was appointed, as was the case with many diplomats in the British Embassy in Washington during this war, he will be assessed on his foreign income as well. So than the objection to giving this wide immunity in this Bill is that we are putting into a category of persons who are exempted from Income Tax a much larger number of persons than is required by the Convention. As I see it, it is no answer for the Government to say. "We are going to keep it down to the Convention." I do not see how in an Order in Council they are going to exclude foreigners and British subjects from this wider immunity, when the Order in Council must necessarily give them the immunity of an envoy. This immunity from taxation is objectionable in the case of foreigners, but so long as it is restricted to the Secretary-General and the seven or eight assistant Secretaries-General there is not much harm in it. But to give it to this larger class of foreigners and British subjects seems even more objectionable.
It becomes even more objectionable when we have a British subject appointed to a post which carries the immunity of an envoy. For example, let us say that Sir John X is appointed to a post which carries the immunity of an envoy. He then has immunity from Income Tax and Surtax as regard two emoluments, which is right. He has immunity from taxation


on his foreign income and on the income derived from Government investments.
The result is, of course, if he has any money in English shares, in English capital values, he would get an enormous advantage from the point of view of taxation by selling out from his other investments and investing in tax free War Loan. Of course, that is a practice which would inevitably be followed by somebody who wishes to take the less amount of tax, and on the face of it he would not be doing anything at all unethical
8.45 p.m.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent an unnecessary class or persons getting immunity from taxation on their foreign income and on their income in Government stocks. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give some undertaking as to that, and, as regards the class of persons other than those provided for by the Convention, who will have the immunity of taxation of an envoy, be prepared to give an undertaking and say that all the classes of persons who are not given that immunity by the Convention should have their taxation relief circumscribed to the extent that it only applies to their emoluments and their salaries. Of course, while that would not be satisfactory as an Amendment embodied in the Bill, it would at least go some way to showing us that the danger we apprehend from a somewhat large class of people being able to enjoy this immunity, would be then removed. It is all the more grave that officials of the United Nations organisation should enjoy this large immunity. In the case of diplomats there is a good deal of control, both by the Foreign Office and by the head of the mission. If a diplomat is abusing his diplomatic privilege, in the sense of getting an unnatural advantage from it by remission of taxation, it is always open to the Foregin Office to say, "We think he ought to pay this tax voluntarily." They are very reluctant to do that. It is also open to the head of the mission to say, in regard to any particular case of full envoy immunity, that a particular person should not take advantage of it, so as to not bring him in disfavour with the country to which he is accredited.
In the case of the United Nations organisation officials, the danger of giving this unnecessarily wide envoy im-

munity—if I may call it that—is, as has been said, that high officials of the United Nations organisations are not accredited to any particular Government, and the immunity is not restricted to the time when they are discharging their functions. If the French Ambassador to Spain comes to England he is not given this immunity from taxation in this country; he naturally has to pay on his investment in Government securities. In the case of a United Nations organisation official, the immunity is world-wide. It is obviously right in the case of the high officials that the advantages of giving them this very wide immunity from taxation and currency restrictions should be applied to them, as was the Convention. We want to develop the idea of respect to a world State, and of the responsibilities of these high officials being absolutely untrammelled by pressure from national Governments. There I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But this Bill allows this very wide immunity to be extended to another class. It allows the Government to say that a whole category of lesser officials —but high officials under the definition of the Bill—may, in their wanderings throughout British territory, have this immunity from taxation which, by the Convention, is only intended to apply to the Secretary-General and Assistant-Secretaries-General. In my submission, the fact of being accredited, and the fact that in the case of envoys it is restricted to the country to which they are accredited, and does not apply to them while they are in other parts of the world, are very important factors in justifying the principle of the Convention in restricting it to this narrow class.
I only wanted to add one more word to support the hon. and learned Member for Daventry when he spoke about Section 11. It seems to me that on this legal point the right hon. Gentleman may not be correct when he says that Section 11 (a), which gives immunity from personal arrest, is meant to limit the immunity, and that Section 11 (g), which says that these representatives of members may enjoy
such other privileges … not inconsistent with the foregoing as diplomatic envoys enjoy 
is meant only to include immunities which do not cover the immunities granted under Section 11 (a). In other words, his argument is that because under Section 11 (a)


immunity from personal arrest or detention is mentioned, it does not cover any wider immunity which includes that. I think that is very doubtful as a principle of construction. For instance, if one said that somebody was immune from chicken pox, that is not inconsistent with being immune from any disease. A piece of cake is not inconsistent with the whole cake, the smaller area is not inconsistent with the larger. The word "inconsistent" is not a proper word to describe the difference between a part and the whole. I do not know what Euclid would have said about that, but it seems to me that when the greater includes the less, the greater is not inconsistent with the less. However, that is a minor point, and it was only a point brought by the right hon. Gentleman against our Amendment. The general principle however remains: we are anxious, just as the right hon. Gentleman is anxious, that the Convention should be followed to the letter, and that the principle of immunity and privilege should be applied to these international officials to enable them properly to discharge their duties. But the Convention, in its wisdom, has said that the highest form of immunity is only necessary for a very limited class. I submit that the British Government should follow the Convention, so that foreign nations will see in the Bill that we are fulfilling our obligations under the Convention, but are not going one whit beyond them.

Mr. Pickthorn: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, if he will, a couple of rather general points, and one other which is more particular and, in a way, rather delicate and perhaps blunt at the same time. I will come to that last. The first two, I think, 'have already been indicated, though perhaps not quite so specifically as I understand them and wish the Committee to understand them. First of all, is the Bill, without the Amendments, calculated to give to the Government power to grant wider immunities, or immunities to wider classes of persons, than is necessitated by the Convention? It seems to me plainly that it is. If it is, I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he ought not to offer so to amend the Bill as to avoid that disparity. I would suggest to him that it is not a sufficient answer to say that the Amendments put down by

the Opposition do not exactly meet that demand. That may be so; but even if that is so, upon the assumption which I have made, the Bill, as drafted, is going to give the Government power to grant wider immunities than are necessitated by the Convention. Upon that, I do think that the Government ought to consider whether this is not one of the points on which they should have a self-denying ordinance. They should deny themselves what governments—and, I agree, all governments—are always tempted to do —to use a majority to take wider powers than are necessary. It really will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself, and to say he is sure we shall accept his pledges, and so on. It has nothing to do with matters either of Party prejudice or of personal judgment of character to say, that such pledges are not relevant to this kind of argument. If the Bill is giving wider powers than the Convention necessitates, it ought to be amended; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to make quite plain to us, whether that is so and, if it is so, why he refuses this Amendment. Merely indicating that his legal advisers do not think our Amendment is the best possible is not enough.
I think it is of more importance than ever to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. He will do me the justice of admitting that I have put this argument on all sorts of Bills when all sorts of parties were in office. I think it is particularly important at a moment like this when we are purporting to set on foot a new sort of international forum, and when we are the first nation to give statutory authority to what is required by the Convention—I think it is extremely important that we should keep in exact step with the Convention, and not outrun the pace of the Convention any more than lag behind the pace set by the Convention. I think it is an argument which it is quite fair to put forward, and I think it is peculiarly appropriate on this occasion, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider that.
Then, my second general point in connection with this block of Amendments is his argument against, at least, one of these—I think I can lay my finger on it: it is the fifth down on page 2811. There may have been another, but that one he certainly alluded to, and he endeavoured to put that one


out of court upon the plea that it is not necessary, that here legislation is not requisite, because what is needed here can be done by administrative action. Again, I would invite him to consider whether that argument really is good enough. Declaratory statutes and declaratory sections in statutes have been common form—perhaps, they were commoner form than any other kind of statutory provision for many generations —and up to the present day have been common form in statutes. At this moment, when 51 nations are invited to legislate in order to give statutory force to this Convention, precisely at this moment, there is a very strong argument, indeed, for the view that everything they do, should be done explicitly and openly, even if this means a certain amount of declaratory language, though the new Statute is not strictly necessary in order to achieve the desired result. I think that is a fair argument, and I think it ought to be met.
9.0 p.m.
Now I come to my last point, about which I have some slight diffidence I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman that I have not warned him upon it, for it is a point on which, I think, he ought to have been warned; but I have not had the chance. It is this general argument of extending semi-diplomatic privileges to a new class of persons against whom His Majesty's Government will not have the accustomed sanction of reciprocity. The general argument for doing that has been that all these organisations and persons are extremely well intentioned; that we need not have fear of abuse. For instance, it was specifically said by the right hon. Gentleman the other day—I think he referred to it tonight—that there was no case of abuse by the League of Nations or any of the organisations associated with it. I ventured to say on an earlier occasion that I thought that that was a dangerous argument. There are many pieces of behaviour in many families which would be scandalous if publicly known, but which do not always get publicly known. It would be temerarious to use that argument in regard to a family, and it might be equally temerarious in the case of the League of Nations, or some of its associated organisations. Now we know, or at least I think we know, because newspaper reports on these matters never carry us very far, and the newspapers have not

had much time yet in connection with the espionage, if it is espionage, in Canada. A newspaper tells us:
Among the organisations through which the system was said to have operated was the International Labour Office.
That may be going beyond the facts—I do not know. Here is another newspaper cutting which says a little more, though it has chosen rather unhelpful detail as newspapers very often do. One cannot 'quite see how it was worth the expense to telegraph that a lady was—
A stout woman of about 45 who walked with the assistance of two sticks … an employee of the International Labour Office.
At least it looks as if it was plain that whether or not the International Labour Office was in the racket, certainly one of its employees was. I hope, therefore, it is not unfair to put to the right hon. Gentleman this question: Have the Government more information about this, and if so, does he not think it ought to be given to the House, if not at this stage, on Third Reading, because the general argument for this extension of privilege on the ground that abuse need not be feared, that experience shows in analogous cases abuse does not happen, does seem on the face of it to have a considerable hole punctured in it by this allegation. If it can possibly be made available to us, we ought to have more information than we can expect to get from across the Atlantic in newspapers at short notice.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman, in answering the case for these Amendments, and in appealing to us not to press them, was good enough to pay tribute to the spirit in which I have approached this Bill, but if he attempted in any way to draw any difference between myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am afraid that he was on a false track. What I was trying to' do, having seen the Debate on Second Reading, was to argue the right hon. Gentleman away from the morass into which he was getting, and in a spirit of old comradeship, based on a not inglorious Government, to try to get him back from these wild statements into calmer waters. If he says that because my hon. Friends and I stood against privilege we were somehow against the League of Nations or the United Nations, he will see that here that does not run, and that we are carrying out our proper guardianship of the privileges of the people whom we


represent. He says, as I understand it, that his legal advisers tell him that these Amendments will not carry out the purpose. He says that he sympathises with our party, but that our Amendment will not carry out that purpose.
Well, of course, I have one advantage over him—I have very good legal advisers; and they are here. We never see his advisers; they are wandering around. Of course, I am not competent, and I do not think that he is really competent; we are both amateurs dealing with the exact meaning of these words. They have their advisers, and our's are not without distinction. If he says that, then I say to him: In that case, give us something, so that we can reach an agreeable conclusion on this matter. He says: "I will give you an assurance that if it comes to the issue of Orders in Council, we will not, in fact, use the maximum powers, but we must have the maximum powers and we will issue Orders appropriate to each of these four categories of persons."
I cannot resist reminding him of what his colleague's views are about assurances. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health met the same argument made by the former Attorney-General, and he said, in splendid words, which should be printed over every Government Department: "I am sorry, but I think the House is with me in this matter when I say that I am rather chary of assurances by the Front Bench. Why are these things not put in the body of legislation?" I agree with the Minister of Health. He has vanished now to a happier and higher field, but he still has, I am sure, chat instinctive love of the traditions of this House which has made him one of the great Parliamentarians of his time. When I say, "Why cannot you put it in the Bill?" the right hon. Gentleman says: "I would like to, but it just cannot be done, it is impossible. There are no lawyers in the world who could put into a Bill what is in the Convention." Of course, he has his lawyers. If this cannot be put into the Bill, how is it going to be put into Orders in Council? I am only an amateur, but it seems to me that if one can draw up words appropriate to Orders in Council for each of these four categories of persons, it should not be beyond the wit of man, at reasonable fees, and with proper consideration, to put them

into the Bill. It he really says, and all the lawyers say, "Sorry, but it cannot be done," then I am afraid, without disrespect to my legal friends in general, that I must agree with Mr. Bumble and say that in that case the law is an ass. Of course it can be dune. What is meant is that they do not want to do it, because it is a tiresome, troublesome, and, perhaps, complicated operation, and it is much easier to consider each case when one has an Order in Council.
I would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to end this matter in this new spirit of comradeship, which we appear to have developed by the very important concession which he has made to us, to carry that through. Cannot the Law Officers make a supreme effort before Parliament adjourns? Cannot the learned Attorney-General, before he sets out for Warsaw, or wherever he goes, really put his mind to this? Cannot he and his Parliamentary Counsel say whether this thing can be done? It seems to me that if it is possible to draft words conveniently in the Convention, it really must be possible to draft them in the Bill. If he contends that our Amendment does not do that properly, let him draw up an Amendment that will. He has proved himself so accommodating, under pressure, and also perhaps under the charm of the holidays not so far removed, that I would make this last appeal to his better nature. He is one, I am sure, who can he moved by argument. Of the Government as a whole, it may well be said that they belong to the category that
goeth not out except by prayer and fasting.
We have had a little fasting, perhaps now we may have a little prayer. I do not ask for a definite pledge, but for some indication that he will look at this matter between now and the Report stage to see if this cannot be put down in a tidy and proper way, so as to set an example to the Government not to use this slapdash way of taking powers far beyond their need.
I appeal to him to do that, and if he could give that assurance I should not trouble whatever particular shift happens to be on duty this evening to walk through the lobbies. I would be very much happier if I felt that I could rely upon his consideration between now and next week or next fortnight or whenever we take the next stages of the Bill to see whether the human brain could not do what Members of this House wish him to do.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I expect' hon. Members would like me to answer some of the points they have made, and, therefore, with great diffidence I inflict another speech on the Committee, which I hope will not be too long. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) raised again the meaning of Section 1 (2) and what effect it would still have on the Orders in Council made under the 1944 Act. The words of Section 1 (2) are that that—
shall not affect the operation of any Order in Council already made.
I am advised that that means that it will leave the Order in Council operating with the same content and effect as it is now. I hope that that interpretation will satisfy him. In any case I will look at it again as he asked me to do.
The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) raised once more the question of Section 11 (a) and (g) of the Convention, the legal immunities to be given to representatives of Governments coming to Conferences or to the Assembly. The reply to him was this: surely there would be no point in putting in subparagraph (a) at all, if subparagraph (g) bore the interpretation which he gave to it. Although I will agree to look at it again, I think that is the only reasonable interpretation.
The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked why did we turn down the fifth Amendment on page 2811 simply because it is declaratory of powers that now exist. I will look at that again before the Report stage and see whether there is something that could, with real advantage, be put in. I confess that we wanted to make this Bill as short as possible and we wanted to save the time of Parliament as much as possible. Once that general method of the Bill was decided on, I think the omission of the subparagraphs was the logical conclusion, but I will look at it again.
The hon. Member for Northwich again raised the question of taxation. On the subject of the taxation that the various categories of people will have to pay I still think what I have said before is correct and I do not want to change or add to it. High officials of an international organisation will only get immunity from taxation when they are resident here, just as an envoy only gets it when he is resident here. Of course the normal situation will be that these officials will not be resident here, because I do not suppose any inter-

national organisation will have its seat in this country. If any such officials were resident in this country, I say again what I said on the Second Reading, that we want an international official who is British, to have the same status, privileges and rights in all particulars as an official of an equal grade of other nationalities, and we also want him to have the same status and privileges as envoys of larger or smaller Powers accredited to the Court of St. James.
I do not know that I really followed the hon. Member for Northwich on one of his points. He said, if I understand him, that we were obliged by the Bill to do something about taxation by Order in Council. Of course, we are not obliged to do anything by Order in Council under the Bill. We are empowered to do things; and we are free to restrict what we do to something less than the Bill provides. The Bill says plainly:
to such extent as may be specified in the Order 
and that is how we intend to adjust the privileges to what is required in each Organisation.
The junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) asked me whether this Bill really meant the Convention, the whole Convention, and nothing but the Convention. The senior Burgess for Cambridge University asked me the same question, but in a rather different form. I will deal with both in turn. I would answer to the junior Burgess that in the effect which it will have this Bill will give us the Convention, the whole Convention, and nothing but the Convention. The Government can do nothing under the Bill without an order in Council——

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Are the powers in the Bill to represent the Convention, the whole Convention, and nothing but the Convention?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is the case that in certain unimportant particulars the Bill gives the Government power to do something that is wider than the Convention. In the practical effect it will have it will give us the Convention, the whole Convention, and nothing but the Convention.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is the practical effect, but what he means is that it is the practical effect which the Government means


to make under the Bill, and not the practical effect the Bill would have.

Mr. Wilson Harris: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that is the practical effect why cannot that be specified in the Bill?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is the point that was made by the senior Burgess, and I am coming to that.

Mr. Wilson Harris: It is none the worse for that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have the highest respect for both the Burgesses who represent the leading University of the country. I quite agree that the senior Burgess is right in saying that Parliament should be jealous of granting such powers. I do not deny that for a moment. I do not want to repeat at-length all I have said so many times about the power of Parliament to destroy an Order in Council; but if Parliament destroys an Order, the Government must present an amended Order. While, technically, therefore, the House cannot amend an Order in Council, the Government must either give the Order up, or must amend it. Therefore, Parliament really remains the master of what is done. If the junior Burgess for Cambridge University had been here all the time, he would have seen that when you come to deal with the rights of these four different categories of persons in respect of a large number of international organisations, the detail may vary greatly. If you try to put that detail into the Bill you will have a Bill which is enormously unwieldy, and you will make a large number of mistakes which will subsequently have to be amended by legislation.
The reason why we adopted this method, after having considered the methods suggested by hon. Members in their Amendments, and which we decided were unworkable, is because we were convinced that neither for the Government, nor Parliament, was there any advantage in those methods. We considered that there would be grave disadvantage in the fact that amending legislation would be needed whenever a change of detail was desired. I hope that the House will accept that argument as being of great force. The senior Burgess for Cambridge University spoke about the I.L.O., and the Canadian espionage case.
Of course, there may be abuses. I may have overstated the experience of the past with international organisations; it may be things were hushed up. All I meant to say, in my original statement, was that, in fact, this had not led to any considerable abuse or caused any grave scandal. I think that is admitted. Cases may arise, and that is why this Pill and the Convention provide such ample safeguards against abuse. I have spoken of these safeguards before I repeat them once more. There is the limitation of the privilege to what is needed for the purpose for which the man has it. There is also, not only the right of waiver, but the duty of waiver imposed on the various persons, organisations, or Governments concerned. There is the provision for tribunals to try a case, if there is a dispute. There is, in the last resort, reference to the International Court of Justice. It is not conceivable that, if the Director of the International Labour Office were asked to waive the immunity of an official, supposing she had an immunity, in this espionage case, that he would not waive it, that justice would not take its course. We must consider the thing as a whole. We must think of the main purpose which is in view. For those reasons, I suggest, both to the senior and to the junior Burgess for Cambridge University, that the method of precise definition in the Bill, which hon. Members opposite have suggested by their Amendment, would have a very great and practical disadvantage, and that the advantage, if any, would be very small.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that the Convention has so completely failed to make itself clear?

Mr. Noel-Baker: By this Bill we shall not only cover the United Nations, but there are to be modified versions of this Convention in respect of other international organisations. There may be many of them. We want by this Bill powers to deal with them. The Convention sets a maximum which none of our Orders in Council will ever exceed, but we do not want to have to come to the House with a new Bill every time the privileges of one of these organisations are consolidated and have to be brought into force. I think hon. Members opposite have been fully satisfied by the assurances which, on request, I have


given on that point in our earlier Debates about these other organisations.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of waiver, and referred several times to the waiver of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. What is the position with regard to waiver when an organisation is not a United Nations organisation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The intention is, as I shall say in the pledge which I shall read on the Report stage, which I think is now agreed on both sides, that, with regard to the existing organisations which have immunities under the 1944 Act, we shall not change the Orders in Council, unless and until they are consolidated with the new system, on the basis of the Convention, by the Secretary-General in the negotiations which he will have. With regard to new organisations which are created— for example, the Health Organisation, which is now under discussion in New York— we shall present an Order in Council only when the Secretary-General has drawn up the immunities in accordance with the system of the Convention. I hope that is clear and satisfactory. I do not say and this is really the point that was made by the junior Burgess for Cambridge University and by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) in his concluding words— that precise definition of everything in the Bill itself could not be done by lawyers; I say it is not worth doing, because the advantage one would get, if any, would be outweighed by the great disadvantage which one would suffer. Certainly, I will consider again, between now and the Report stage, whether Amendments can be introduced which will go some distance in the direction which hon. Members opposite want. I do not feel very optimistic about it, because we started on that plan, and we gave it up as a result of our attempts. I think I have given many practical examples of the great difficulties we would encounter, but certainly we will consider it. And I will make one other offer, which perhaps the right hon. Member for Bromley may think of some use. I would certainly undertake that the Government would consult with the Opposition, through the usual channels, as to the terms of the first Order in Council which we brought in

under the Bill, so that we could make sure that that Order in Council did not go beyond the Convention, and there would thus be that guarantee for hon. Members opposite before any Order was made.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think we have had a valuable discussion on this matter and have made some progress. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will endeavour to make a further attempt between now and the Report stage to meet what I think are the wishes of both sides of the House that the Bill should correspond with the Convention, and I welcome this. If we on this side can be of any assistance in achieving that common object, although the right hon. Gentleman says that we have failed so far by our Amendments, I am sure we shall be glad to do so. In view of his assurances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Section 1 (2) of and the Schedule to the Principal Act as amended by this Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this he the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There are one or two small points on the Second Schedule which I think should be raised before we part with it, because I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with them on the Report stage. The first question is that of rates. Under Part II of the Schedule it is said that these higher officers shall receive:
The like exemption or relief from taxes and rates as is accorded to such an envoy.
The right hon. Gentleman said on the last occasion upon which we debated this that the individual diplomat does pay full rates on his residence, and I ask him to consider between now and Report stage whether the words "and rates" on page 6, line 2, of the Bill, are necessary. Quite clearly the organisations have offices here which will be free from rates under Part I of the Schedule and, therefore, as I see it, there will be no need to provide that the words "and rates" shall be inserted in Part II. In fact, if the right hon. Gentleman is right in what he said in column 824 of HANSARD, the words have no significance or meaning at all. I hope he will say that he will look into that point.
Another point is the omission of the word "minor" before "children" in Part IV. There has been some observation about the interpretation of the word "children" and it has been given different interpretations in different statutes. The Convention contains the words "minor children" in Section 19, and I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that for the sake of clarity and precision he will insert on the Report stage the word "minor" before "children" in this case. Those are two small drafting Amendments which do not affect the spirit of the Bill and I hope the Minister will meet us. The third point with which I should like him to deal, if he will be so good, is precisely what is meant by the first line on page 6:
The like inviolability of residence as is accorded to such an envoy.
I am not quite sure what the case is for that with regard to individuals. Individuals over here——

The Chairman: (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt but the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman are not points of substance that can properly be discussed on the Second Schedule. The First Schedule is merely a reprint incorporating the Amendments which were made to the First Schedule and are of a consequential nature.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With great respect to your Ruling, Major Milner, I would submit that there are points on the Second Schedule which are not purely consequential because the Second Schedule contains words which do not appear in the First Schedule. For instance, in the Second Schedule, on page 2, we have the words:
The like exemption or relief from taxes and rates as is accorded to such an envoy.
Those words do not appear in the First Schedule and, as I understand, Major Milner, you are now discussing whether the Second Schedule shall stand part in its present form. We are not discussing any particular Amendment. Therefore, I submit that we are entitled, before we part with the Second Schedule, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability of making minor alterations in drafting, and are also entitled to ask him for an explanation of the meaning of a sentence which he, and the Govern-

ment, desire to have included in the Second Schedule.

9.30 p.m.

The Chairman: The Second Schedule, as I understand it, embodies Amendments which have been decided upon by the Committee, and everything in it must be consequential upon the First Schedule. The Second Schedule incorporates Amendments which have already been passed and, therefore, there is nothing which can be discussed upon the Second Schedule as any alteration therein would be inconsistent with decisions already taken.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The heavy type incorporates Amendments made in the First Schedule, of course, but the part which is in black type but not in such thick black type, is part of the Second Schedule, and we are discussing whether the Second Schedule should be part of the Bill. On that question I should have thought it was in Order to put the questions which I am putting to the Minister for clarification. They will not take me long. I want to know the precise meaning of something in the Second Schedule.

The Chairman: Those points have already been decided or are in the original Act.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not talking about the words in thick black type.

The Chairman: Then the hon. and learned Member is talking about something which is in the original Act which has been amended and settled in the form appearing in the Second Schedule, which is a mere reprint for convenience. I do not think anything more than the question as to whether the Schedule shall in fact be incorporated is discussable.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With great respect, Major Milner—and I will not pursue this argument—I should have thought that as we are being asked to put a Second Schedule into the Bill we were entitled, on the Question whether that Schedule should be part of the Bill, to put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman.

The Chairman: I am sorry but, as I understand it, the Second Schedule is a restatement of something in the principal Act, as amended by the Committee. Those


Amendments have been set out, and have been approved in the First Schedule, and it, therefore, does not seem to me that there can be anything further in the Second Schedule which can be discussed.

Earl Winterton: May I call your attention, Major Milner, to the heading of the Bill? There it is stated:
In the enactments set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill words to he inserted by the First Schedule are printed in heavy type.
Surely the purpose is to differentiate one part of the Second Schedule from another?

The Chairman: I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but the Amendments in the heavy type are now incorporated in the First Schedule, and in my view, the Committee having incorporated them, they cannot be debated on the Second Schedule.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I may, with great respect, say that I am in agreement, Major Milner, with the interpretation which you have given. The Government's intention in printing the Second Schedule was to help hon. Members to understand what would be the effect of decisions made on the First Schedule to the Bill. If, therefore, we were to reverse anything on the Second Schedule, that would be reversing a decision which has already been taken on the first two parts of the Bill. I think that discussion of substance is not now in place. However, I have taken the hon. and learned Member's points, and, with your permission and that of the Committee, I will answer them, if that is agreeable.

The Chairman: If I were to allow the right hon. Gentleman to deal with those points, which are not properly discussable, it would be opening them to Debate in all parts. The right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing of substance to be discussed on the Second Schedule. In my view, there is nothing at all which can be discussed upon the Second Schedule, which is a mere restatement of the decisions which have been arrived at by the Committee.

Mr. H. Macmillan: If there is nothing which can be discussed on the Second Schedule, and if that Schedule is merely printed in the Bill for the convenience of Members as a White Paper or as a leaflet for the guidance of Members, may I ask you, Major Milner, what was the purpose of the Question which you have proposed

"That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill"?

The Chairman: The effect of my argument is that the Second Schedule is a mere reprinting, and has to he formally incorporated, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, in the Act.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Further to that point of Order. If we had a Motion on which it is impossible either for the Opposition to raise a point or for the Minister to answer a point, there does not seem much reason for our having the Motion. So far we have reached very good arrangements with the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman could be allowed to say that he will take note of the points raised and refer to them at a later stage of the Bill, it might solve the problem. I quite see your difficulty about allowing a Debate, Major Milner, but we do not wish that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could say that he will take note of the points and at a later stage say whether he considers they are relevant or not.

The Chairman: If the Committee are in agreement with that course, I have no wish to stand in their way. The right hon. Gentleman may give clarification and answer one or two of the questions put by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I have no objection to that if it is the Committee's wish, but on the clear understanding that there is no Debate on the Second Schedule.

Earl Winterton: In order to emphasise what I think is a rather important constitutional point, surely it is always in Order when discussing the merits or demerits of a Schedule, when the Question has been put from the Chair, to ask the Minister what is the meaning of a particular phrase if that particular phrase has not occurred in a previous Schedule? It is important that that point should De cleared up.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will seek not to abuse your indulgence, Major Milner, and will speak very briefly—[Interruption.]

Earl Winterton: I said that the only people who were completely ignorant were the supporters of the Government below the Gangway who were engaged throughout our points of Order in disorderly interruptions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will not on this occasion follow the noble Lord in view of your Ruling, Major Milner. I will look into the matter of rates and see if there is more to be said. I will only call the hon. and learned Member's attention to the fact that this was in the Act of 1944 and we thought it better not to change it. With regard to the inviolability of residence, that means that the police or other State authorities shall not enter the envoy's residence except with the envoy's permission. If we have one of these, high-ranking international officials resident in this country and want to put him on the same footing as an envoy, we think it right that he should have that inviolability.
With regard to minor children and the reason why we left the word "minor", which is in the Convention, out of the Bill, it was because we desire to apply the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom and it so happens that the phrase "minor children" has in Scottish law a particular significance. It means children between the ages of 14 and 21. On the other hand, Scottish law does not know the word "infant" and we could not cover it in that way. We might perhaps have found some other phrase, but since in fact it is well established that the giving of immunities to diplomatic envoys for their children here is restricted to children under 21, we thought that if we had it in this form it would be perfectly clear.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Without, I hope, being out of Order; will you permit me, Major Milner, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for dealing so clearly and shortly with the points I have raised?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What we are really allowed to debate now is just the simple question whether this Schedule, which is in the form of consolidating legislation, shall be added to the Bill or not. I welcome the procedure adopted in this Bill of setting up a consolidating Schedule. I welcome it very warmly indeed, and offer my congratulations to the Parliamentary draftsmen or the Minister or whoever it was who thought of this excellent way of clarifying the whole issue.
I hope it will become a precedent, for it really is a legislative step forward of the first magnitude towards making Acts

of Parliament more easy to understand, and I welcome it.

Preamble agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."

Earl Winterton: I want to say a word on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he has met our points on the Committee stage. It was in striking contrast to the gross discourtesy of his supporters below the Gangway.

Mr. Yates: Major Milner, may I ask how hon. Members below the Gangway can be protected from these attacks by the noble Lord? I have been here on several occasions when I have heard statements made by the noble Lord and I do not think such accusations should be made against hon. Members below the Gangway.

The Chairman: It statements are made which are unparliamentary, it is the duty of the Chair to deal with the matter, whether they are made by the noble Lord or any other hon. Members. An accusation of discourtesy, however, is not unparliamentary.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. In view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), is there nothing in the Rules of the House that would allow us to give to the noble Lord and his associates a little proletarian agitation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would like to say how much I appreciate what the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was good enough to say about me. I would also like to say this: Many of us have known him for many years and those who have done so have a great affection for him and understand his moods. They all know that in a certain state of inspiration he thinks bad manners a substitute for good arguments. I think it must be said that hon. Members on this side have endured long and painful Debates with great patience. I hope we have enjoyed a great deal of them and, in any case, I hope we are reaching a satis-


factory conclusion and that this Bill will shortly be on the Statute Book.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CRASHED AIRCRAFT DAMAGE, BICKENHILL (CLAIM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Michael Stewart.]

9.43 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I think that all hon. Members will have had experience only too often of Departmental delays and confusions. It is a case of that type which I wish to bring to the notice of the House this evening. It is a case involving two Departments, and I think that the delay and confusion were aggravated by there having been no proper contact between the two Departments and, indeed, no proper contact between the central and local offices of those Departments.
The facts are as follow: On 3rd January of this year, an aircraft crashed on Castle Hill Farm, Bickenhill, Warwickshire, in my constituency and, seven weeks later, the valuer for the tenants of the farm wrote a letter, dated east February, to the Under-Secretary at the Air Ministry in London. In the course of that letter he wrote:
On Saturday, 12th January, my clients telephoned and asked me to go over at once as the R.A.F. salvage gang were making a terrible mess. On arrival, I found that such was indeed the case, several heavy vehicles had become completely bogged, and the field was badly cut up. The drive to the farm (a long one) and the yard, which had recently been repaired by my clients at considerable expense, was in a shocking state, and impassable to ordinary vehicles. Briefly, much unnecessary damage was done owing to the complete lack of any intelligence on behalf of the R.A.F. salvage gang, who did not appear to care what damage they did. The vehicles were finally extricated the following afternoon, after much more damage had been done. Upon inquiry at the station, nobody could, or would, give any information as to who would be dealing with the question of compensation. The following week I was in conversation with No. 6 Works Area at Rugeley… and, upon asking who would be settling this claim, I was informed that they would, but that nothing could be done until the report was received from the station concerned. I have telephoned on three further occasions,

with the same result. My clients have been put to inconvenience and expense in this matter, and still have the major part of the reinstatement to do. I was there again yesterday "—
That would be 20th February—
and find that the site where the aircraft fell and burned out has not been properly cleared up and that boards used under the wheels of the lorries are still lying where they were dropped, the R.A.F. making no attempt to clear anything up after leaving. I enclose my claim for damage …
The claim amounts to £256 and is set out in considerable detail. The next step I have to mention is a letter from the Director of Lands and Requisitioning at the Air Ministry, written a week later, on 1st March. In that letter the Director of Lands and Requisitioning wrote:
I am directed to refer to your letter, dated 21st February, relative to a claim for damage caused by a crashed aircraft on your client's farm"—
that is, Messrs. W. J. Hadley and Sons, of Castle Hills Farm, Bickenhill—
and to inform you that instructions have been issued to the Superintendent Engineer, No. 6 Works Area, Rugeley, to investigate this matter and report thereon as soon as possible. In this connection, a representative of the superintending engineer will be contacting you without delay. Upon receipt at this headquarters of the requisite information, consideration will be given to the matter, and a further communication will be addressed to you. Meanwhile I am to express regret for the inconvenience which your client and yourself have been occasioned.
That was on 1st March, and after that there was nothing further in the way of documents until 1st May. That does not mean that nothing happened during that time, because the valuer was continually pressing over the telephone for some information as to what was happening. On 1st May the valuer wrote again to the Director of Lands and Requisitioning at the Air Ministry, and it is to be noticed that this was four months after the date of the crash. The valuer wrote:
Further to your letter of 1st March, a representative from No. 6 Works Area called upon me shortly after receipt of your letter. He had inspected the damage and appeared to agree with my complaints. Since then, nothing further has been done in spite of several telephone calls "—
This is the most remarkable thing which emerges—
Upon further inquiries today I am now informed that the matter has been passed on to the Fleet Air Arm and it appears that if this passing on continues to its logical conclusion my client will continue to suffer this


great inconvenience while the various Government Departments try to make up their minds as to the responsibility.
In reply to that letter, the Director of Lands and Requisitioning wrote, on 7th May:
I am directed to refer to your letter dated 1st May, 1946, previously acknowledged, and to confirm the telephonic communication of 4th inst. to the writer of this letter. As explained,—
I think this is a singular sentence—
some difficulty was experienced in establishing the identity of the aircraft involved and which proved to have been operated by the Royal Naval Air Service. In these circumstances, and under the agreed departmental procedure for dealing with arising claims, it has been necessary to forward the claim in question for consideration and settlement by the Admiralty Land Surveyor at Sutton Cold-field, and action to this effect has been taken by the Superintending Engineer, No. 6 Works Area I am to express regret that some unavoidable delay has been occasioned in this matter with consequential inconvenience to your clients, and in order to assist, the Superintending Engineer has been asked to contact the Admiralty Land Surveyor with the purpose in view of expediting consideration of the claim.
After that there is nothing further in the form of documents, but I received a letter dated 11th June from the valuer, asking me to take the matter up. I then put down a Question on the Order Paper. That Question was originally addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, but it was transferred, and replied to by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. He replied in these terms:
The damage was caused by a Naval aircraft. I much regret the delays, which were due to the erroneous impression of the claimant that the crashed aircraft belonged to the Royal Air Force and to the failure of the parent Naval Air Station to take the action prescribed for reporting accidents. Steps have been taken to ensure that the prescribed procedure is strictly adhered to in future and instructions have been given for this claim to be dealt with immediately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1946; Vol. 424, C. 56.]
I think it was a bit stiff on the part of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to try to fasten some of the blame upon my constituent, having regard to the fact that the Air Ministry in London were under the impression for four months that the aircraft belonged to the R.A.F., and that their local representative did not discover the fact that it was a naval aircraft until March. The Navy apparently did nothing to try to disillusion my constituent with regard to the aircraft, be-

cause the salvage party cleared off, declining to give any information whatever as to the steps which my constituent should take to pursue his claim. On 10th July, in reply to a further Question which I put on the Order Paper, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty said:
This crash was reported to the Admiralty on 3rd January as a casualty, but as already indicated in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 19th May, owing to the failure of the parent naval air station to take all the action prescribed for reporting accidents, it was not simultaneously reported as a claim. Notice of the claim in respect of damage caused by the crash and by the salvage operations which were carried out by the local naval authorities was not received until early in May, when the papers were forwarded to the Admiralty by the Air Ministry. I understand the tenant's agent was simultaneously informed that his claim had been so forwarded. Owing to the lapse of time and subsequent dispersal of officers and men, considerable difficulty was experienced in confirming the facts, but a meeting on the site was held on 28th June as a result of which the claim was settled to the tenant's satisfaction. 
To a further Question on the same day the Under-Secretary of State for Air replied:
I am afraid there was a misunderstanding when this claim was put to the Air Ministry. The tenant's agent told us that the Royal Air Force had caused the damage. In March, however, our local Works officer found out that the crashed aircraft had belonged to a naval air station in Scotland; also that the Navy, not the R.A.F., had been responsible for the damage done in taking it away. After these facts had been established, the case was not well handled, and, unfortunately, none of the information was passed on to the agent or to the Admiralty until early in May. I regret this delay in correcting the original impression that the R.A.F. had any responsibility in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1946; Vol. 425, C. 374–375.]
I think it a most extraordinary thing that the local works officer of the Air Ministry became aware in March—two months after the crash—of the identity of this aircraft, and aware that it did not concern the Air Ministry but the Admiralty, and yet he took no action whatsoever to inform my constituent that his claim should in future be directed to the Admiralty nor did he inform the Admiralty or the Air Ministry. In fact, he did nothing at all, so far as I can understand, and for a further two months my constituent continued to look to the Air Ministry and they continued in negotiation with my constituent. It seems that this requires some fuller explanation. I have received many courteous apologies and my constituent has received a sum which apparently he considers sufficient compensation for damage done, but an in-


cident of this kind makes one wonder whether the organisation in these two Departments does not require a very substantial overhaul and whether the conduct of the officers responsible does not demand a very thorough investigation. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, who I know have gone into this matter carefully, will give to the House a full explanation of how this deplorable muddle and confusion came about.

9.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. We have gone into this matter very carefully and, if it is any consolation to him, I can assure him that it has taken both my hon. Friend and myself and a large number of high officials and high ranking officers quite a considerable amount of time. It is quite proper that it should be so, and I make no complaint about it. I think the best thing I can do is to describe the events as they occurred. A Seafire aircraft landed at Elmdon R.A.F. aerodrome in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on 3rd January. It took off again and crashed almost immediately.
The usual routine is that, when any aeroplane crashes, two reports are made— first, a report on the reasons for the crash, a technical report on the condition of the aircraft, and, secondly, a report that damage was caused, with the necessary statement of claim. That is automatically sent on. Why did that not happen in this case? The first report was undoubtedly sent in. It was a report dealing with the technical aspect of the claim. Why was the second report not sent in? I must state that the Admiralty take entire and complete blame for this and admit that they are at fault, but the reason is this. When the crash occurred——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

Mr. Dugdale: When the crash occurred, the commanding officer of the parent aerodrome in Scotland, in his report, stated that a claim in respect of damage to private property had been dealt with

by the Royal Air Force at Elmdon, and here I am speaking with the concurrence of my hon. Friend and not trying to pass the blame from one Department to another. I am only trying to state what the facts are. He stated that the claim had been sent on by the R.A.F. officer in charge, and that he checked it with that officer who had sent this claim in. It was reported to the Fleet Air Ann headquarters at Lee-on-Solent that this had been done, and everybody was satisfied that notice of a claim was being sent in in the normal way, that the R.A.F. officer had, in fact, sent off the claim.
It was not until 9th May, however, that the superintending engineers of the area concerned passed copies of the tenant's claim to the Admiralty. I cannot explain this delay, and my hon. Friend authorises me to say that there is no adequate explanation, but that, in fact, the Air Ministry do admit that they were to blame for this delay of two months in the sending-in of this claim. The delay, incidentally, was not from 1st January, but 10th February, which was the date on which the farmer concerned sent in his claim. I hasten to say that I did not intend for a moment to cast any blame on the farmer for not sending in his claim earlier. If the hon. Gentleman thought I did so, in my reply to him, I would say that all I intended to say was that the claim could not be remedied as early as it might have been because the first information we had was on 20th February. Therefore, there was a delay of six weeks, from 1st January to 20th February, due to the fact that the farmer, quite correctly, did not know where to send in his claim. That accounts for the delay up to the time that the Air Ministry received it.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman appreciates that the valuer for the tenant had been making repeated inquiries at Elmdon and elsewhere as to what to do, but was given no information whatever by anyone.

Mr. Dugdale: I am informed that, in fact, the complaint was finally sent in on 20th February, and I am simply dating the events from 20th February, because that is the date on which the claim was sent in, and I am dating the delay as from 20th February. I admit that, obviously, the tenant could not send the claim in before, owing to the fact that he did not


know where to send it. The Admiralty department concerned, which eventually received this message, is a department which deals chiefly with the control of land owned, leased or requisitioned by the Admiralty. It is a very busy department, as the hon. Gentleman can well imagine, in view of the great task, in which all hon. Members are concerned at the moment, of derequisitioning land.
This particular job of looking after compensation payments is only one of its many duties, but, in spite of this, the claim, once it got through, was settled very quickly, particularly so in view of the fact that many things had happened in the meantime. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are now in the process of demobilisation. The aerodrome concerned had closed down in the meantime, and was put under care and maintenance. Many of the key ratings of the recovery party who collected the crashed plane and who, as the hon. Gentleman has said, were responsible for further damage, had been demobilised, including the petty officer in command, and it was exceedingly difficult to get all the necessary information. Nevertheless, in spite of this, a meeting was held on the site on 28th June, and the claim settled to the full satisfaction of the farmer, seven weeks after it finally reached the Admiralty.
I have stated that I do not intend to take—and, indeed, I cannot afford to take— on behalf of either Department, a high and mighty line about this matter. I am willing to admit that there has been an error, but I would submit that it is not a complete breakdown. It was an error on the part of one officer who failed to send in his report, so far as the Admiralty are concerned. There was also an error, no doubt, on the part of one officer in the Air Ministry, but that does not mean that the entire system is wrong. Incidentally, instructions have gone out to prevent a recurrence of events such as this.
In conclusion, I would repeat that it is not a general practice we are dealing with; it is a single error, although a bad error. Even the Navy, and, indeed, if I have my hon. Friend's permission to say so, even the Royal Air Force, does, on occasion, make mistakes, but not often. They are few and far between. If I might be allowed to say one final Sword to the farmer who has suffered this

very great inconvenience—"to err is human, to forgive, divine."

Sir J. Mellor: May I ask the Financial Secretary, or the Under-Secretary of State for Air, if he is prepared to answer the point, what steps have been taken to examine the local works officer of the Air Ministry who made no move for two months after he had discovered in March that the aircraft belonged to the Navy, to inform his Department, the Admiralty or my constituent? What reason was there for his taking no action? I think that that requires some further explanation.

Mr. Dugdale: Steps have been taken to inquire into this matter, but, naturally, the Under-Secretary of State for Air must take the blame, just as I have said that, for my Department, I must take the blame. Steps have been taken to inquire into the matter, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the people in the Department concerned do definitely know that all is not well, and have been told so.

Sir J. Mellor: This is a very mysterious matter. Are we to have no explanation as to the reason which was discovered, or whether no reason was discovered? Will not the Under-Secretary of State for Air give some explanation?

10.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I do not know whether I am in Order in corning in on this, because the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty has really covered the point. However, since there has been a specific question, I should like to say that we have not been able to find out what happened. Of course, it is constitutionally right that the Minister takes the blame because the wrong was done by the Department. We have admitted the wrong. and we take the blame. Investigations are, of course, being made, and the conclusions, so far as any general breakdown is concerned, are as have been stated by the Financial Secretary. As far as we have been able to judge, it is not the system that needs overhauling, but the fact that this man made a mistake.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.